
Class JbMMiSQ 



REPLY TO A PAPER, 

CIRCULATED 
UNDER THE NAME OF 

THE LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN. 



y2 ^?7/ /sca? ^^//^^ 



A 

REPLY TO A PAPER, 

CIRCULATED 

UNDER THE NAME OF THE 

LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN: 

THE OBJECT OF WHICH IS 

TO COUNTERACT A VERDICT 

IN AN ACTION 

BROUGHT BY THOMAS MEADE, ESQ; 

AGAINST THE 

REV. CHARLES DAUBENY, 

Before Lord Kenyon, and a Special Jury, in the 
Court of King 's- Bench, in June 1792. 



BY THOMAS MEADE. 



Qui poft femel inventam veritatem, aliud quserit, merida* 
" cium quaerit, non veritatem." 

Concil. Chalced. Act. 3. quoted by 
Jewel, Bifhop of Salisbury. 



PRINTED BY 
RICHARD CRUTTVVELL, ST. JAMES's-STREET, BATH. 

1806. 



PREFACE. 



THE contents of this pamphlet are di- 
vided, for the convenience of the rea- 
der, into feparate parts. 

The firfi contains a hiftory of the fubject 
in queftion, together with a vindication of 
the verdict, and of the teftimony of Mrs. 
Meade, in opposition to the " endeavours"* of 
the Bifhop of Lincoln to counteract the one, 
and to falfify the other. 

To this is added an Appendix, containing, 
under letter (A.), a mort account of the efforts 
made by the different parties to promote, and 
to prevent, family reconciliation. 

Under letter (B.) is a fliort but important 
correfpondence between the Rev. Dr. Blay- 
ney and the Rev. Mr. Daubeny, on the fub- 
jecl of reconciliation. 

* See his Lord/hip's paper in the Appendix. 



vi 



PREFACE. 



Under (C.) are given the letters of William 
Stevens, efq; on the fame fubje£t, in reply to 
Mr. Daubeny's application to him, which is 
alfo given. In this part will be found an 
account of Mrs. Meade's interview with her 
mother, which the reader will naturally com- 
pare with the account given of it by the 
Bifhop of Lincoln. 

Under (D.) is a fhort hiftory of the Bifhop 
of Durham's interference, which the reader 
will alfo compare with the Bilhop of Lincoln's 
reprefentations of it. 

Under (E.) is Mrs. Meade's correfpondence 
with Mr. Daubeny, after he had acquainted 
her with the death of her mother, and the 
difpofition of her fortune. 

Under (F.) is given, verbatim, a copy of 
the Bilhop of Lincoln's manufcript as fent 
by his Lordfhip to Mr. Meade. 

And under (G.) is Mr. Meade's correfpon- 
dence with his Lordfhip previous to this 
publication. 

The affront offered to Mrs. Meade> which 
is the fubjecl of this pamphlet, was of fuch 



PREFACE. 



Vll 



a nature, that Mr. Meade confeffes he was at 
a lofs how to proceed. He therefore con- 
fulted with thofe whom he thought compe- 
tent to give him found and temperate advice ; 
and he has alfo waited, not only to fubdue, 
as far as he could, any fentiments of irritation, 
but likewife to fee clearly what fteps his op- 
ponents propofed to take; that by them he 
might be guided in his meafures to repel the 
attack* And finding that copies of the Bi- 
Ihop's manufcript are multiplied, and exten- 
sively circulated in public and private with 
incredible incluftry, Mr. Meade has deter- 
mined that his defence mall keep pace with 
the injury, that the antidote may at lean; 
follow the poifon. And he trufts with con- 
fidence that there will be, and can be, but 
one opinion on the fubjeft among difpafli- 
onate readers. 

As a retired individual, Mr, Meade would 
apologize for carrying the fubjeft of his own 
private concerns beyond the circle of his 
immediate connexions : But he perfuade;s 
himfelf, and he is Supported in that perfua- 



Vlli 



PREFACE, 



fion by very high authority, that his caufe 
will be confidered not unimportant in a more 
general view, as involving in it the interefts 
of humanity and the fecurity and protection 
of the laws themfelves. 



The Reader is requested to make the following Corrections. 

Page 12, 1. i, dele about. 

14, 1. 15, for the paper, read his paper. 

27, in the notes, for See Appendix, read See page 71. 

28, in the notes, for See Appendix, read See p&ge 66. 
30, in the notes, for See Appendix, read See page 73* 
45, 1. 16, after father put a comma only. 

47, 1. 13, for her, read Mr. Meade. 

76, 1. 17, for means read mean. 
219, 1. 9 from the bottom, for taking, read to take, 
265, in the note, for twenty, read sixteen. 



A 



REPLY to a PAPER, &c. 

nr^HE writer of the following pages is fully 
A confcious in how uninterefting a light 
appeals on the fubjecT: of family differences are 
regarded by the public. However the review 
of fuch difputes may gratify the ill-nature of 
fome, or the officioufnefs of others, few feel much 
Concern in the fubject, and frequently pronounce 
both parties wrong, rather than take the trouble 
of an accurate examination into the merits of 
the caufe* 

Notwithftandihg thefe discouragements, the 
writer of this pamphlet has ventured to give a 
ftatement, the facts contained in which he is 
prepared to verify by inconteftable evidence; and 
once more to appeal to the juftice of mankind 
againft the affertions, or infinuations, or by what- 
ever other names the arrows of calumny may be 
marked* which have been again fo wantonly 
aimed at the reputation and moral character of 
the perfon moil: dear to him. He mud confefs 
himfelf alfo to be influenced by a motive not 
lefs powerful than the foregoing 5 which is, that 

B 



[ « J 



the children of the beft of mothers may, when 
her defender is no more, have an unanfwerable 
vindication of her fpotlefs fame 3 and that the 
friends who have loved and efteemed her, may 
confront, with the language of truth, the fabri- 
cated tales of falfhood and dishonour. 

To the upright, difinterefted, and unprejudiced, 
lie makes his appeal : and when he refle&s that 
fifteen years are elapfed fince the difpute in ques- 
tion commenced, and more than thirteen fince it 
was decided in the Court of King's-Rench; that 
the Judge, with many of the Jury, and the greater 
part of the witneffes, have patted to the grave; 
he cannot but think it providential that proofs on 
proofs flill exift to eftablifh the innocence of his 
wife, under perfecutions, infults, and injuries, 
almoli without example. 

Though little difpofed to a wanton cenfure of 
his wife's New Opponent > whofe mifreprefentations 
might almofl juftify any feverity of animadverfion, 
he hopes and expecls that in their judgment of 
the prefent queition the readers of this book will 
forego the coniideration of his Lordfhip's high 
rank, or his great merits as a theologian. His 
conduft, not his opinions or his flation, mull be 
his defence. 

To thofe who will take the trouble to read this 
paper, it is probably known, that in June 1792, 
Mr. Meade found himfelf under the neceffity of 



[ 3 ] 



bringing an action againft the Rev. Charles 
Daubeny, for flander; the object of which flan- 
der was dated to be to prevent a marriage j # and 
that a verdict, with jool. damages, was given 
againft Mr. Daubeny. 

Of the three gentlemen who fought to accom- 
modate the difference without recourfe to law, 
one, the Rev. Dr. Blayney, late Regius Profeffor 
of Hebrew in the Univerfity of Oxford, has al- 
ready permitted his account of the tranfaction 
to be printed. Another, the late Archdeacon 
Coham, appeared in Court as one of Mr. Meade's 
witnefles ; and at an advanced period of life un- 
dertook a journey to Bath, to fet Mrs. Barnlton 
right in regard to mifreprefentations of her 
daughter's conduct, And the third, the late Mr. 
Goddard, of Woodford-Hall, one of the moft va- 
lued friends of Mrs. Meade's late father, has left 
evidence in abundance of his attachment to the 
caufe of Mr. and Mrs. Meade, and of the exer- 
tions he made " to undeceive the deluded part 
" of her family." 

The characters of Dr. Blayney and of Arch- 
deacon Coham are well known $ but of Mr. 
Goddard, whofe life was more private, it is with 
confidence averred, (and his brothers-in-law, the 
Archbifhop of York, and Mr. Hope, with his 
other numerous and honourable connexions, will 

* With Mr. Daubeny's fifter-in-Iaw. 

> 2 



C 4 ] 



juftify the affertion) that few men exceeded him 
in foundnefs of judgment and integrity of heart. 

Previous to the trial, thefe gentlemen, dis- 
gufted at the conduct of Mr. Meade's opponent, 
had given up all hope of fuccefs from friendly 
explanations. After the trial, all unprejudiced 
people thought alike as to the part which Mifs 
Barnfton ought in juftice and honour to aft. Mr. 
Meade, fhe well knew, had been attacked on 
her account alone, and he had publickly vindi- 
cated his chara&er. Her aged mother, under 
early influence and prejudice, had been induced 
to fend her a meffage previous to the trial, de- 
claring that if fhe obeyed a legal fubpcena, and 
appeared as a witnefs in court, u (lie could never 
" fee her again." 

Thefe circumftances led Mifs Barnfton to Jiften 
to the advice of her other friends, and efpecially 
of Mr. Goddard, who had received her into his 
houfe as his own child, when her mother's houfe 
was no longer open to her; and at his earneft 
recommendation, and with the fanQion of fome 
of her deareft and neareft relations, fhe deter- 
mined to marry Mr. Meade. Mifs Barnfton was 
upwards of thirty years of age; her father was 
dead; her fortune was independent and confi- 
derable; and her mother, at the age of between 
feventy and eighty years, was cruelly and moll 
ungeneroufiy influenced againft her. In this fitu-. 



[ 5 ] 



ation Mr. and Mrs. Goddard acted by her in every 
refpect as parents, until they gave her away in 
marriage; and from their houfe fhe went to the 
houfe of her uncle, the only brother of her mother 3 
by whom, and by others of her relations, fhe and 
Mr. Meade were treated with the utmoft regard. 

But Mrs. Barnfton, long deluded, and at this 
time inflamed with anger by a falfe account,* 
which an interefted party immediately fent to her 
of Mrs. Meade's evidence and conduct in Court, 
piGNED at once a long Manifefto, the very firft fen- 
tenceof which betrayed her ignorance of whather 
daughter fwore ; and at the fame time fent two 
letters, one to her brother Mr. Sawbridge, and 
the other to Mr. Goddard, reproaching them with 
their kindnefs to her daughter, and declaring that 
the evidence fhe gave on oath was falfe, and that 
me would herfelf have oppofed it; although it is 
plain that fhe did not know what that evidence 
was. But her brother and Mr. Goddard well 
underftood her fituation; and perfuaded that fhe 
was but an infirument in the hands of others, 
they indulged the hope that reafon and religion 
would in time recover her from the delufion under 
which fhe laboured, and overcome the influence 
under which fhe had afted. 

* As appears by her miftating what her daughter depofed. The 
Manifefto is quoted in the Appendix, in the Bifhop of Lincoln'© 
attack on Mrs. Meade. 



t- 6 ] 



Immediately after her marriage, Mrs. Meade 
wrote toher mother, foliciting reconcilement with 
every expreffion of duty and affection ; alluring 
her of her forrow that the ftate of the family re- 
duced her to a neceffity of acting for herfelf, 
without applying at the time to her mother, and 
requefting mutual oblivion, &c. Of her manner 
of writing one example mall be quoted in full; 
and that one mail be felected, becaufe it is a 
letter to her mother from which the Bifhop of 
Lincoln has made an extract, in order to infer 
♦an acknowledgment of criminality. But his 
Lordfhip took care to quote only the firft part 
of the fentence, fuppreffing the fequel, whieti 
directly overturned his argument.* 

The anfwers which Mrs. Meade always re- 
ceived from her mother, were plainly in the 
language of Mr. Daubeny;f who at length 
printed a book in his own name, about eighteen 
months after the trial, in which all his former 
abufe was revived, with more caution, but with 
increafed bitternefs. 

This book was anfwered by Mr. Meade ; and 
among difpaffionate men he has heard but one 

* The letter is given in the Appendix, page i ; and from the 
beginning to the end of it there is not a fentiment or paflage that is 
not direttly contrary to the fenfe the Bifhop of Lincoln would infer 

from ito 

" f Even whole fentences being the fame as ufed by him. 



C 7 ] 



opinion of it, that it was a complete refutation 
of the calumny which it propofed to anfwer. 

During ten fucceeding years, various efforts 
were made by relations, friends, and ftrangers, 
to effeft family peace ; to which Mr. and Mrs. 
Meade always acceded, only propofing as the 
balls the chriftian condition of mutual oblivion. 

But Mr. Daubeny, who took the leading part 
in every correfpondence, required, with affected 
ferioufnefs, that Mrs. Meade mould, as a preli- 
minary, confefs that me was perjured; and Mr. 
Meade, that he was a liar and a hypocrite; and 
then fhe was to be received to the affections of 
her family ! 

Among thofe who at different times lent their 
friendly fervices, were Archdeacon Coham, the 
Bifhop of Norwich, and Mr. Stevens. Thefe all 
exerted their good offices for peace, but declined 
entering into the quarrel. 

Dr. Blayney, Dr. Falconer, Admiral Stanhope, 
the Bifhop of Durham, Mr. Aclom, and others, 
being applied to by Mr. D. or his friends, to 
review and rejudge his caufe, the two former, in 
reply, gave their reafons for declining it, but of- 
fered their fervices, or expreffed their wiflies, for 
promoting peace. The Bifhop of Durham de- 
clared to Dr. Blayney, " that he Ihould give no 
* c anfwer to Mr. Daubeny's application to him ; 
9 and that he did not believe that any bifhop^ or 



t 8 J 

# any other man, would take upon him to judge 
" a caufe which had been decided at law."* 
Admiral Stanhope and Mr. Aclom having firft 
heard and given entire credit to Mr. D.'s volumi- 
nous ftatements, applied at length to Mr. Meade, 
and foon changed their opinions. But decided 
as thefe gentlemen were againft Mr. D., they nei- 
ther published inve&ives againft him, nor circu- 
lated anecdotes reflecting on his character. Dis- 
appointed in their hopes of effecting peace, they 
quitted the fubjeft without infulting him whom 
they thought wrong. 

At length, after thirteen years had elapfed, Mr. 
Meade received through the Rev. Dr. Randolph 
an application from the Bifhop of Lincoln for his 
papers; and at the fame time a lady aflfured him, 
as flie heard it from the Bifnop himfelf, " that he 
" was perfectly difpaflionate and unprejudiced, 
sc equally a ftranger to both fides, and that he 
a mould not liften to parties or partisans." And 
Mr. Meade, having made it a rule never to obtrude 
his papers on any one, nor to withhold them when 
there appeared a liberal motive of enquiry, did 
not think it right to refufe them to his Lord- 
i"hip; prefuming that he had the fame intentions 
that other people had, and that his exhortations 
might be added to thofe of all who preceded him^ 
to induce Mr. Daubeny to reftore peace in Mrs., 
^Teade's family. 

* See Appendixy^ <2 f+ 



I 9 3 



With this view he fent* to the Bifhop the pam- 
phlet which he had written eleven years before, 
in reply to one by Mr. Daubeny; and added 
feveral fmaller unconnected papers, written at 
various times, containing the occafional corres- 
pondence of Mrs. Meade and others with her 
mother, on the fubject of reftoring peace ; and 
alfo fome letters and papers which marked the 
influence that prevented it, and the probable 
motives of the parties. Mr. Meade had feen 
none of Mr. Daubeny's voluminous papers, which 
the Bimop had been ftudyingf while he remained 
in Bath, and was ignorant of the arguments and 
the mifreprefentations which they contained. 
Convinced that no perfon of fenfe or candour 
could queflion the fafts which he related, he felt 
little concern about the reprefentations of his 
opponent. 

In the papers tranfmitted to the Biftiop, Mr. 
Meade lamented ce the reftlefsnefs of Mr. Dau- 
*' beny, and the abfurdity of his affe&ed demands 
ct of a new private trial. Such a refource, Mr. 
u Meade-faid, would have been defirable previous 

* If it be thought injudicious to have trufted his Lordfhip with 
his papers, Mr. Meade does not mean to write an apology for him- 
felf. He is ready to admit that he had not that prudent jealoufy 
which a man might reafonably entertain in trufting his character 
to an utter ftranger. 

t His Lordfhip tells Dr. Randolph, that he had finimed them 
only the Saturday evening previous to his leaving Bath on the 
Monday. 



i 10 ] 



« to the trial at law, to avoid the diftrefs and the 
" expence of a public inveftigation ; but after fuch 
" public decifion, to go into a private trial of the 
" fame caufe, without, judge, jury, witneffes, oath, 
" or reftraint; without means, and without end, 
" (for the object could not be to reftore family 
" peace, nor to prevent expence, nor to avoid the 
€C expofure of domeftic quarrels ;) all this appeared 
" to Mr. Meade fo abfurd, that he had made up 
" his mind to reject the pretended and affected 
" demands of new trials; but at the fame time 
<c that he mould never be indifpofed to give to 
" any gentleman, who liberally and difpaffionately 
<c enquired into the fubject, every information 
cc that would fatisfy him ; adding, that the legal 
" queftion being already decided, the moral one 
4£ alone of family peace remained unfatisfied." 

The Bifhop's application for Mr. Meade's 
papers was written critically before his Lordfhip's 
leaving Bath; and as he exprefled a wifh to have 
them during the few days which he was to pafs 
at Lymington, Mr. Meade took fome pains to 
convey them to him as expeditjoufly as poffible 
in the Hate they were in. In about ten days they 
were returned; and during fome weeks Mr. 
Meade heard nothing directly from the Bifhop ; 
but he heard enough from other channels to 
prepare him for the fequel. 



[ 11 1 



Among the few families in Bath which zea- 
loufly fupported the caufe of Mr. Daubeny, Mrs. 
Maltby and her daughter particularly interefted 
themfelves; the latter having been very eamelT, for 
a considerable time, to deprive Mrs. Meade of the 
efteem and confidence of a perfon who was known 
to be much attached to her. Thefe ladies were 
perfect ftrangers to Mr. and Mrs. Meade, who 
now learned that they were clofe connections of 
the Bifhop of Lincoln ; one being his mother-in- 
law, and the other his fifter-in-law; and his Lord- 
fhip being a vilitor in their houfe was foon en- 
lifted in their favourite caufe. He was introduced 
to the other partizans of Mr, Daubeny, and to 
Mr. Daubeny himfelf; and living within a few 
doors of each other, they had conftant opportu- 
nities of intercourfe. To the Jail: evening of his 
vifit in Bath the Bifhop was employed in reading 
Mr. Daubeny's papers, and in receiving impres- 
fions from Mr. Daubeny himfelf, and from his 
advocates and partizans. But it never occurred 
to his Lordfhip that in this, as in every other 
caufe, there were two parties; for although Mr. 
Meade lived near Bath, and many of his friends 
in it, yet the Bifhop did not perceive the propriety, 
or even the common juftice of feeing any of them: 
nor did Mr. Meade even know that the Bifhop 
was in Bath, when he was judging and deciding 
on his character. 



C 12 1 



In about about fix vveks his Lordlhip being 
returned to London, and Mr. Daubeny having 
again met him there, a clofe-written manufcript 
book was fent by poll to Mr. Meade, figned, 
<c G. Lincoln;" in which he not only pretends to 
an authority paramount to law, and declares that 
he has fully vindicated a perfon whom a jury had 
found guilty thirteen years before; but, by an 
eafy progrefs, his Lordihip affumes a higher pre- 
rogative, and pronounces the intentions of Mrs, 
Meade's heart to have been wicked; triumphantly 
afTerting that Mr. Meade had not anfwered Mr, 
Daubeny's arguments, nor refuted the Bifhop's 
authorities, nor contradicted evidence or infe- 
rences;— which is very poffible,becaufe Mr. Meade 
had no opportunity of alluring his Lordfhip that 
moftof the facts he recited were untrue; that his 
inferences were confequently unjuft;* and that his 
paper was full of perverfions and miftakes. In- 
deed, it is ftrange that the Bifhop could have 
expected that Mr. Meade's papers mould be a 
reply to anecdotes and affertions which he had 
never feen, 

* The Bifhop's paper of invectives, mall be given in full in the 
Appendix; and the reader will judge whether any qualification to 
which he may lay claim, can authorize the language he has applied 
to Mrs. Meade; and whether the return he made for Mr. Meade's 
confidence and candour was either generous or juft. His Lordfhip 
thought proper further to infult Mr. Meade by a letter, accompa- 
nying his invectives, with apologies for not being able to fend them 
to himfooner* 



[ 13 ] 



The affront thus offered to Mrs. Meade was 
fuch, that Mr.Meade thought it right to take fome 
notice of it ; and his friends perceiving that the 
Bifhop's paper was full of glaring errors in every 
page, which his Lordftiip, as a man of candour, 
might probably be glad to correct, it was ear- 
neftly advifed that Mr. Meade would give him 
the opportunity by a perfonal meeting, which he 
accordingly propofed. But fufpecting, from fome 
hints, that his Lordfhip might be unwilling to 
review what he had done, Mr. Meade thought it 
right to point out fome direct untruths recited in 
his Lordfhip's paper, of which he might eafily 
fatisfy himfelf; and which, though auxiliaries only 
to the principal charges again ft Mrs. Meade, 
(for the compafs of letters would not admit of 
the examination of thefe laft) were yet fufficient 
to prove that the object of Mrs. Meade's oppo- 
nents in relating them was to excite an unjufli- 
iiable prejudice againft her, and to difpofe his 
Lordmip to believe her capable of any enormities. 

The propofed meeting was declined by his 
Lordfhip, as will be feen in the Appendix; and 
Mr. Meade ftill conceiving that fome explanations 
were neceffary, a correfpondence took place, by 
which it will appear that inftead of apologizing 
for the affront offered to Mrs. Meade, his Lord- 
fhip has only added to it. And the copies of his 
paper of invectives being multiplied, and circu- 



i 



t u 1 



lated with great zeal by Tome of his Lordfliip's con- 
nexions, Mr. Meade deems it neceffary to lay the 
whole before the Public ; which he does with the 
more confidence, as the attack on Mrs. Meade 
has relation to a caufe which was publickly 
decided in the Court of King's-Bench almoft 
fourteen years ago. 

This method, which Mr. Meade takes to do jus- 
tice to his family, will be confidered (as he trufts; 
at lean 1 not intemperate, by thofe who read the 
incautious provocation he has received ; and Mr. 
Meade declares that fuch as it is, he can prove 
the circulation of it, and bring it home to fome 
of his Lordfliip's^clofeil connexions. Mr. Meade 
laments that tfce paper is fo long, although he has 
done what he could to render it as concife as 
poffible. He can therefore only requeft that thofe 
who will not take the trouble to read his pam- 
phlet, will not judge his caufe. He feeks no repu- 
tation from the book, and hopes he (hall lofe none. 

Here Mr. Meade cannot help remarking, that 
the Bifhop's early bias in favour of Mr. Daubeny, 
who as a writer was well known to his Lordfhip, 
is more naturally to be accounted for than his 
perfeverance in thofe mi flakes into which he 
feems to have been led, and which he too readily 
adopted. The interefting connexion between the 
Bifhop and Mr. Daubeny (independent of family 
motives, which appear alfo to have had their 



C 15 ] 



fiiare of influence) filled his mind with prejudices 
llronger perhaps than he himfelf might at firft 
have been aware of. 

Mr. Meade trufts that his habits and principles 
would lead him alfo to defend the Church and 
its Minifters; and if his Lordihip had known him, 
he would have feen that mod of his clofe attach- 
ments in life have been to men exemplary as 
Minifters of the Church. But in zeal for any 
defcription of perfons, the fundamental principles 
of juftice and charity mult not be forgotten. 

If a deliberate judgment of a court of law is to 
be rejected ; if folemn oaths are to be pronounced 
perjury ; a juft and temperate man would proceed 
with cautious fteps. He would liilen to both fides, 
and mew at leaft equal attention to both parties. 
He would afk, before he condemned, " What ad- 
" vantage could redound from the com million of 

a monftrous a£tof guilt? What was the former 
"conduct of the party accufed? Was it irre- 
cc gular or fufpicious; or was it uniformly religious 
" and eftimable? Who are the accusers? Are 
" they difinterefted and difpaffionate? Has their 
u conduct been candid ? Are their anecdotes and 
f< affertions touching the character of the accufed 
" proved to be correct:? or can abfolute want of 
" truth be difcovered in them?" In a word j a 
man who would venture to judge in fuch a cafe, 
Should aik himfelf, " Have I any prepcffeffions or 



Z 16 ] 



cc bias of my own ? Have I affociated with, and 

" converfed frequently with, one of the parties, and 

C( with his partizans; and have I ever feen the 

* f other party, or any of his friends? And fhould 

c< I not emphatically have done this latl aft of 

" juftice on the prefent occafion, if I am confcious 

tfe that thofe clofe connexions of my own who 

tc introduced the fubje£l to me, are among the 

€C moft decided fupporters of one of the parties; 

* £ while the other does not know the evidence on 

* 

" which I am going to decider" 

But before Mr. Meade examines this affront, 
fo unprovoked by himfelf, and fo unfeeling to- 
wards Mrs. Meade, he cannot help afking the 
Bifhop of Lincoln, " Who made his Lordfhip 
cc a judge and a divider over them?'* A paper 
is circulated, which, if not cognizable by law$ 
effects the mifchief of which perhaps by legal 
punctilio it may efcape the confequences. By 
what right is this done? How comes it, that 
after profeffions of impartiality, and after having 
defired Mr. Meade's papers at Lymington, 
where the Biihop faid " he ftiould be at leifure m 
<c read them he referved himfelf till he returned 
to London, where Mr. Daubeny was again ad^ 
mitted to him ? 

After the decifion of a tribunal, to which Mr. 
Daubeny himfelf fays, " he thought it his duty 
cc as a good citizen to fubmit," what does his 



Lordfliip mean by obtruding the affair agaiil 
upon the public? Has he difcovered any new 
proof? Has he produced a fingle article which 
was not equally open to Mr. Daubeny, and as 
much in his polleffion before the trial as at this 
time? And if Mr. Daubeny thought it any wife 
material for his own j unification, or for the con- 
demnation of Mr. and Mrs. Meade, why was it 
not then brought forward? Is there an argument 
now produced by the Bifhop, which was not 
anfwered in Mr. Meade's pamphlet, written 
eleven years ago, in reply to one by Mr. Daubeny? 
With tendernefs*for the feelings and character of 
Mrs. Meade, few will now be difpofed to credit 
any of her opponents. 

But in thefe repeated endeavours to injure her 
chara&er, it is hoped that her reftlefs enemies will 
ftill find themfelves difappointed ; and that they 
\fill have to blame thmfelves only for reducing 
Mr. Meade to the neceffity of again expofing theif 
injuftice. 

As the Bilhop of Lincoln feems unconfcious 
of having fallen into that error of felf-deception 

* The Bifhop, who feems never to have heard of the caufe till 
many years after its decifion, pretends " that Mr. Daubeny /pared 
" Mrs. Meade from tendernefs and delicacy" But who alked him, 
Who defired him to fpare her? Not Mifs Barnfton, nor any of her 
friends. Did he love her better than himfelf ? Did he facrilice his 
money, and what he mofl valued, to his delicacy to her ? Let his 
conduct* in public and private, for thirteen years, be the anfwen 

C 



[ 18 ] 



which he charges on others, and anxioufly pro- 
fefles, even before any one could be fuppofed to 
doubt it, the moft difmterefted motives for enter- 
ing on this affair, Mr. Meade would afk him, 
" Who was the Lady* that offered his Lord- 
cc fhip the pamphlets? Who was the friend in 
cc London that had changed his opinion on the 
" fubjecl ? Who was it that mentioned to Mr. 
t( Daubeny his Lordfhip's willingness to enter 
" on the bufinefs? Had his Lordfhip's con- 
cc neclions no influence? and had he himfelf no 
<c communication with Mr, Daubeny both before 
(e and after he received Mr. Meade's papers?" 
Thefe queftions are only put to give the Bifhop 
an opportunity of proving that he had no bias 
from thofe that introduced the fubjecl: to him, 
and that he had not prejudged the caufe. 

His Lordlhip, in the outfet, was led into an 
error, from which he was not likely afterwards to 
extricate himfelf, by receiving as a document a 
paltry publication, of no name, no credit, falfe 
in the verdi£i, in the fortune flated to be Mifs 
Barnfton's, in the damages laid in the declaration, 
In the names of witneffes, in the evidence, &c. : 
a defpicable printed account of the trial from 
newfpapers, which Mr. Daubeny knows to be 
abfolutely without authority, and for the moft 
part void of truth : and, on the whole, fuch non«> 

* See the Bifhop's paper in the Appendix* 



[ 19 1 



fenfe, that it is unaccountable that any man would 
difgrace himfelf by appealing to fiich as authority. 

But Mr. Meade will have many occafions to 
mark incorrectnefs and rafhnefs. And when he 
has fatisfied the reader of the utter falfehood of the 
charges invented or propagated to injure the moral 
character of Mrs. Meade, he trufts that every 
man of feeling and integritity will join with him 
in difregarding the Bifhop of Lincoln's " endea- 
" vours" as he expreffes it, to prove that me fwore 
falfely ; and indignantly afk his Lordfhip, " Is no 
" period of time, no judgment, public or private, 
" to protect perfons from fuch endlefs perfecution." 

The object of the Bifhop of Lincoln is to coun- 
teract a verdict of the Court of King's-Bench, and 
to vindicate Archdeacon Daubeny from the effects 
of it 5 which his Lordfhip propofes to do, by im- 
puting to Mrs, Meade unheard-of wickednefs, 
concluded by wanton and malicious perjury. 

It is neceiTary that the reader mould have fome 
previous knowledge of the facts which originally 
led to this attack; and a fhort fketch of them fhall 
be laid before him.* 

* The reader is requefted to keep in mind the four points which 
the Bifhop endeavours to prove againft Mrs. Meade, viz. " that? 
" Mr. Daubeny did not interfere to prevent her marrying;" " that 
" her mother never confented to her marrying;" " that Mr. Dau- 
" beny did not make thofe communications to her refpecling a will, 
" which me declared on her oath;" " and that if he did make 
" fuch, the effect which thefe communications and their coofe- 

C 2 



C 20 ] 



After the death of the^firft Mrs. Meade in May 
1788, Mr. Daubeny folicited Mr. Meade for many 
months to join his party abroad; and received 
him in July 1789, at Spa, with the utmoft kind- 
nefs. He had fpoken of him conftantly in terms 
6f the higheft regard, and often declared, as he 
wrote to Mr. Meade, " that he and all the friends 
" of his late fitter were for ever bound to love and 
S£ esteem him." It is plain therefore that he did 
not then confider him fo exceptionable a chara&er, 
as he has fince been pleafed to reprefent him. * 

Mr. Daubeny was accompanied in a foreign 
excurfion by his wife's fiHer Mifs Barnfton, a lady 
about thirty years of age, and of independent 
fortune. She had patted almoft the laft thirteen 
years of her life with Mr. and Mrs. Daubeny, and 
her kind attentions and fervices had rendered 
her peculiarly acceptable and neceffary to them. 
Her fortune placed her above owing pecuniary 
obligations, and flie made one of the travelling 
party on terms of perfect equality. 

Mr. Meade, after repeated folicitations, joined 
their party at Spain July 1789, where they all met 

" quences had on her conduct, were not fuch as (he depofed to." 
It is prefumed that the reader will foon fee that his Lordfliip is 
inifiaken in every point. The anecdotes and ftories recited by the. 
Bifhop are but auxiliaries to the four principals, and feem defigned 
chiefly to fecure credit to them, or to any enormities. But when 
the falfhood of thefe laft mall be alfo manifefled, it is hoped their 
dFectswill b£the reverie of what their fabricators, defigned. 



[ 21 ] 



as brothers and fillers. But the jealous eye of 
Mr. Daubeny quickly fufpe&ed what might fdf> 
low, and he foon difcovered unaccountable marks 
of uneafinefs. At length the matter was opened 
by himfelf in a conference with Mr. Meade, who 
with aftoniihment heard him defcribe the fentiU 
ments of Mifs Barnfton and her family as ex- 
tremely averfe from him, with expreffions that 
both wounded and mortified him in a great 
degree; and piqued at what he had heard, and 
particularly hurt at Mr. Daubeny's account of 
Mifs Barnfton's conduct, who, as he faid, defired 
that he would put a flop to Mr. Meade's purfuit s 
he readily and inftantly difclaimed all idea of any 
future engagement, and defired that Mrs. Dau- 
beny and Mifs Barnfton might both be called, in 
order to fet their minds at reft, and put an end 
to the fubjecl for ever; adding, that his affe61ion 
for Mr. Daubeny was fuch, (and fo it was at that 
time) that he fhould be miferable if any thing 
mould interrupt the happinefs he enjoyed at pre- 
fent and in profpecl from the friendship of a 
brother-in-law, in whofe fociety he hoped topafs 
much of his life. Mr. Daubeny eameftly inftfied 
on not calling in Mrs. Daubeny and Mifs Barn/Ion-, the 
firft, on account of her ill health ; and the latter, becaufe 
of the indelicacy of calling her in on fuch an occajion 
alone*, and when Mr. Meade urged him to wave de- 
licacy for once 3 he refiejled and injijled that it mud not 



t M ] 



6e; and holding Mr. Meade's hand, and remark- 
ing that the affair being for ever at an end, he 
deiired, as a particular favour, that the fubject 
fhould never again be mentioned to his wife or 
Mifs Barnfton, which Mr. Meade promifed; and 
thus was that promife obtained, with the breach 
of which he fo bitterly upbraids Mr. Meade. 

By means fimilar to thofe practifed on Mr. 
Meade, Mr. Daubeny contrived alfo to hamper 
Mifs Barnfton with fimilar affurances or promifes* 
and with fimilar injunctions of fecrecy; fo that, as 
fhe expreffed herfelf, in a letter* to her mother, 
" he feemed to have laid a fnare from the be- 
<c ginning to entrap :" and to Mrs. Gunning, in 
October 1791, " Mr. Daubeny was from the be- 
" ginning telling me that Mr. Meade had no re- 
" gard for me; and to Mr. Meade, that I was 
tc not attached to him/' 

It may be alked, what could have been Mr. 
Daubeny's motives for this violent oppofition? 
In point of fortune, of family, of age, of rank in 
life, Mr. Meade was no unfuitable match for 
Mifs Barnfton ; and as a hulband, no man had 
borne more affectionate and friendly testimony to 
his character than Mr. Daubeny. What could 
he object to, but that for reafons beft known to 
himfelf, he did not like that his fifter-in-law mould 
marry at all; for as he told Mr, Meade, " flue 
* In Oftober 1799. 



V 23 ] 



cc had refolved never to leave him and her lifter 
" by marrying." And as he himfelf expreffes in 
his letter to Mifs Barnfton, " you declared that 
€f you never would facrifice me or Betfey to any 
€ * man whatever "\ 

But he now pretends, " that the obje£Hons 
ce lay with all the Barnfton family, and with Mrs. 
" Barnfton efpecially, who could not hear of the 
" matter without averiion." But how could he 
know of thefe violent objections? When Mr. 
Daubeny left England, the firft Mrs. Meade was 
ftill living; and Mr. Meade's joining the party 
as a fingle man could not then be even matter of 
furmife. And can the family be fuppofed to have 
declared their fentiments of a matter, of which 
there was not a diftant probability? and of a man, 
whom they all appeared ever to like? to whom 
Mrs. Barnfton, when he left her houfe, which he 
did immediately before his going abroad, exprefled 
herfelf in terms of mod afTe&ionate regards, de- 
firing, that, on his return, her houfe mould be 
his home. 

It had been Mr. Meade's early defign to vifit 
Italy ; and after fome hefitation the whole party 
refolved on the fame. But although a more dis- 
tant referve had taken place between him and 
Mifs Barnfton, yet it was impoffible not to fee 
that they were far from thinking of each othe? 

t The original is in Mr. Meade's pofleffion* 



C 24 ] 



as Mr. Daubeny reprefented 5 and it was his ab* 
furd jealoufy that furthered the difcovery, and 
perhaps contributed to that end which he endea- 
voured to prevent. He regarded their anions 
with inceffant vigilance, and on the mod infig- 
nificant occafions betrayed exceffive emotions 
which are not worth relating. 

Uneafy at living under perpetual conftraint, 
Mr. Meade determined to leave the party. But 
on mentioning his defign to Mifs Barnfton, fhe 
made ufe of every argument and intreaty to de- 
tain him, urging, " that to leave Mr. Daubeny 
" would make the breach everlafting; that a little 
te time mufl heal it 3 that Mr. Daubeny's temper 
" was peculiar; and as fhe bore it, (he requefted 
" Mr. Meade to do fo too. She was miferable, 
tc fhe faid, at the thought of occafioning a breach 
" between brothers, who had met in fuch affec- 
<s tion and harmony; and fhe fuggefted another 
<c argument, which fhe knew mufl: have great 
" influence on Mr. Meade," But Mr. Daubeny's 
behaviour growing ftill more offenfive, Mr. Meade 
would bear it no longer, and at Geneva declared 
his intention of flaying behind, in order to learn 
Italian, before he croffed the Alps. But Mrs. 
Daubeny fpoke to Mifs Barnfton on the fubjecl, 
who told her that Mr. Daubeny's altered condu£l 
was no doubt the caufe : and an explanation 
taking place, and all uniting in requefting Mr. 



[ 25 ] 

Meade at lead to crofs the Alps, he conferred 
to proceed. 

It is unneceffary to relate the behaviour of 
Mr. Daubeny, at the leaft mark of civility fnewn 
by Mifs Barnilon to Mr. Meade ; who at length 
availing himfelf of an opportunity to enquire of 
her into the caufe of Mr. Daubeny's unaccoun- 
table conduct, the whole plan of his mifreprefen- 
tations was difcovered. " A time would come/' 
Mifs Barnilon faid," when fire mould fpeak outj" 
" that neither her mother or her friends would be 
H difpleafed at Mr, Meade's attentions to her;** 
and " for herfelf, Mr. Daubeny well knew me 
" was far from being unhappy at them." " But/* 
flie alked, " why Mr. Meade mould have fpoken 
"Jo difresJieBfully of her, as he had done to Mr, 
" Daubeny ?" 

It was impoffible not to perceive immediately, 
the part Mr. Daubeny had been a£Hng by both, 
Mifreprefenting each to the other, he availed 
himfelf of the fifterly affection of one, and of the 
unbounded confidence of the other; and having 
entangled them with declarations which he con- 
firmed into irrevocable promifes, he laid his plan 
to keep them always in ignorance, by ftrift in- 
junctions of fecrecy. Mr. Meade defired inftantly 
to fpeak to him, not in confidence, but in reproach; 
but Mifs Barnilon knew his temper too well to 
Venture on it, fubject as fhe was to him while they 



were travelling. Mr. Daubeny was entitled to no 
particular refpe& or confidence. They owed 
him no duties, nor would any breach of hofpita- 
lity have been committed; for the party was alf 
equal, men and women, brothers and fitters, tra- 
velling together at a joint expence. But Mifs 
Barnfton convinced Mr. Meade that nothing 
would make her fo unhappy at prefent, or give 
Mr. Daubeny fuch an opportunity of prejudicing 
by letters her family againft Mr. Meade, as open- 
ing herfelf to Mr. Daubeny in reproach, or other- 
wife. She refolved therefore, from neceffity, to 
adopt the painful plan of ftri£t referve, while me 
fhould remain abroad ; taking every opportunity 
of correfponding and converfing with Mr. Meade 
that was poffible, without alarming Mr. Daubeny 's 
jealoufy or fufpicions. Mr. Meade quitted the 
party fome months after, and Mr. Daubeny and 
he parted, not with much cordiality, but with 
decent civility and reciprocal good wiihes. 

Whatever may have been the ftate of Mifs 
Barnfton's alfe&ions, fhe returned to England free 
to difpofe of herfelf or not ; as flie proved, when 
Mr. Meade afterwards propofed to her. 

Mr. Meade having arrived from the Continent 
a few weeks after Mr. Daubeny, and being affured 
by Mifs Barnfton of her affe&ions, in compliance 
with her advice to addrefs her openly, he went to 
Bath for the purpofe^ and called at her mother's 



[ 27 3 

houfe to breakfaft. But he was foon convinced 
that the ground had been pre-occupied, and Mr. 
Daubeny's prefence prevented his opening him- 
felf in perfon to Mrs. Barnfton. As foon as he 
had retired, Mr. Daubeny addrefted Mrs. Barnfton 
with angry and violent inve&ives againft him, 
concluding with informing her, <c that he was 
" come to make propofals of marriage for her 
tc daughter,"and declaring himfelf decidedly averfe 
from Mr. Meade. To this Mifs Barnfton alluded, 
in a letter* to Mr. Daubeny a few weeks after. 

But Mifs Barnfton, unwilling to leave her caufe 
altogether in Mr. Daubeny's hands, and confident 
that her mother had no perfonal objections to Mr. 
Meade, foon took an opportunity of talking with 
her alone in her chamber; and having explained 
to her the ft ate of her affe&ions, and gently touched 
on Mr. Daubeny's unfairnefs abroad, Mrs. Barn- 
fton replied, " My dear, you are your own miftrefs, 
" you are to pleafe yourfelf; it is your concern." 
6 But after what you heard Mr. Daubeny fay, 
c will you receive Mr. Meade as a fon ?' " Y es, 
w my dear, that I will." c But will you think 
6 my following my inclinations a breach of duty 
< to you?' " Not I, indeed, my dear." 6 But 
* you have heard, Madam, what Mr. Daubeny 
e faid/ " Well, you muft go and perfuade him." 
<■ Oh, Madam, I wifti I could. 5 



C 28 ] 



As foon as Mifs Barnfton left her mother, me 
met Mr Daubeny, and having told him what 
had paft, he replied, " that (he had extorted con- 
" fent; for what could a mother do, when (lie 
* £ faw a daughter fo interefted; that he knew her 
" mind better ; Jhe had ftrong objections to Mr, Meade. 
" Befides, what did Mifs Barnfton think of him, 
u and his wife; were they to be Sacrificed?* He 
< c would never affociate with Mr. Meade. He 
* c would feparate his family for ever from her 
<c mother's houfe, if Mr. Meade was admitted 
" into it." Mr. Daubeny addrefled himfelf im- 
mediately to Mrs. Barnfton alfo; and, after a long 
converfation w T ith her on the parade before her 
houfe, he appeared to have worked her up to a 
compliance with all his fentiments. 

But Mr. Meade, unacquainted with thefe cir- 
cumftances, had engaged the wife of his friend, 
the Rev. Dr. Gunning, to be the bearer of pro- 
pofals to Mrs. Barnfton; and Mrs. Gunning ac* 
cordingly waited on her the next day, and having 
ftated her bufinefs, " What can I, as a mother, 
' e do?" faid Mrs. Barnfton. " How can I, after 
" what Mr. Daubeny has declared, how can I 
ce bring divifions into my family? But my daugh- 
" ter is her own miftrefs, fhe is to judge for her- 
" felf, and to pleafe herielf." Mrs. Gunning 

* This lingular expreflion occurs twice in Mr. Daubeny's Utt& 
to Mifs Barnfton, See AppGt&&*JiA~ ££ 



i 



[ 29 ] 



retired, little fatisfled with the fubjection of the 
family to Mr. Daubeny, and particularly con- 
cerned that Mifs Barnfton did not decide at once 
for herfelf, as her mother had made no perfonal 
objections to Mr. Meade, and left her daughter 
wholly to herfelf. 

As Mrs. Gunning was retiring, Mr. Daubeny 
detained her, to juftify hlmjelf for the part he 
atled againft Mr. Meade ; which he did with fuch 
Intemperance, as fhocked Mrs. Gunning ex- 
tremely;* declaring, as he had faid to Mifs Barn- 
fton, " that he would not live in the fame family 
*' with him — that Meade had got io,oool. by one 
€C mter,f and wanted to get as much more by 
" another." 

After a few days, Mifs Barnfton reflecting with 
much pain on the mortification to which fhe had 
expofed Mr. Meade, and learning that he was 
about to leave England, infilled on permiffion to 
fee him at her mother's houfe, to convince him 
and his connections, that me perfonally meant no 
unkindnefs, nor countenanced the incivility to 
him. Great objections were made to his coming 

* See Mifs Barnfton's letter to Mr. Daubeny, written a fe\£ 
weeks after, defcribing this fceney^C 

f The reader is requefted to judge, whether Mr. Daubeny does 
not feem by thefe words to hare himfelf afligned a motive which 
can explain his conduct! 



[ 30 ] 

there, but Mifs Barnfton for once refilled with 
fuccefs, and Mr. Daubeny retired to bis chamber. 

During Mr. Meade's fhort vifit, Mrs. Barnfton 
came into the room, and expreffing her willies 
that her daughter mould not be agitated, Mr. 
Meade in great pique declared, <c that he mould 
" not have come to her houfe, if he had not been 
" invited; that he would never obtrude himfelf 
" on her's or on any family;* and that he mould 
te never come there again until he was aiked," 
or words to that erTe£l. Mrs. Barnfton immedi- 
ately departed, and Mr. Meade foon after took 
his leave. 

Mifs Barnfton had much time to reflect on what 
was paft, and always with diftrefs. " Her nerves,^ 

* The Bifhop of Lincoln dwells much on a promife alleged to 
have been thus made by Mr. Meade to Mrs. Barnfton, of never 
marrying Mifs Barnfton without her mother's confent ; and Mr. 
Meade is heavily charged with a breach of this promife. But if 
his Lordfhip were informed of the real circumftances, he would in 
candour have called it, not a promife, but a natural expreflion of 
pique, in confequence of very unkind treatment: for after Mr. 
Meade had been invited to Mrs. Barnfton's houfe, and then in effect 
defired to quit it, he haftily declared as is ftated in the text. But 
after two years, when Mifs Barnfton was rejetted from her mother s 
family, and when thofe relations and friends who adopted her, 
advifsd and exhorted her to marry, it would be ftrange indeed, if 
Mr. Meade had declined to perform the part, which honour and affec- 
tion dictated, on account of what palled as above. Mr. Daubeny 
gives this incident the high colouring of a binding promife, intro- 
ducing, as is ufual with him, a religious folemnity to accompany 
it; which Mr. Meade afferts to be merely an invention of the 
imagination. 

% Vide letter in &?§^X.Ji/L y3 



C 31 1 



as (lie tells her mother, <c were too much affected 
<c to admit of her re-opening the affair, while Mr, 
fe Daubeny and his party were at hand. But 
" fhe refolved to do it, as her mother did not 
<c know half what paffed between Mr. Daubeny 
" and her. She w T as not fatisfied in reafon or 
cc confcience with yielding." In fa& fhe formed 
refolutions and indulged hopes, and again aban- 
doned them; Mr. and Mrs. Daubeny defcribing 
their fuffetings fo as to afflicl her to the foul ; " Mr. 
* c Daubeny particularly charging her with cruelty 
" to him."f 

Haraffed and diftra&ed, file knew not what to 
do. In the mean time her health and fpirits de- 
clined, while Mr. Daubeny's influence on her 
mother and filter (Mrs. M. Barnfton) grew daily 
ftronger. " My mother," fays Mifs Barnfton, in a 
letter to Mrs. Gunning, " feems fo turned againft 
<c Mr. Meade, by the effect it has on Mr. Daubeny's 
" health, that I don't wonder my health is lefs 
€C attended to." Again, " My mother thinks Mr. 
6e Daubeny can never love Mr. Meade fo as to 
" receive him as a brother. Let me intreat you, 

if ever you mention this fubjecl, to enjoin fe- 
£C crecy about Mr. Daubeny.'* 

Mifs Barnfton had even the pain of expofing 
Mr. Meade a few months after to frefh infults, by 



t See Mifs Barnfton's letter to Mrs. Daubeny. 




f 



[ 32 ] 

fequefting him, with the advice of her relations, 
to write to her at her mother's houfe ; me propo- 
fing to come to Bath upon it, and to make an effort 
in confequence. But Mr. Meade's letter was not 
only intercepted, but anfwered by Mr. Daubeny 
with a torrent of infult and abufe. And Mr. 
Daubeny had the addrefs to perfuade Mrs. Barn- 
fton, that what Mr. Meade thus did at the requeft 
of her daughter, and others of her nearell relations, 
was an injury and an infult to Mrs. Barnfton, and 
a violation of honour and confcience. 

But the time was coming when the hardfhipof 
fubje&ing an amiable woman, independent in 
her fortune, to the controul of a brother-in-law, 
in a point moil effential to her happinefs, and on 
which her age and her underftanding rendered 
her competent to judge, could not heJp linking 
every reafonable perfon. 

Mifs Barnfton had for fome time flu&uated be- 
tween a regard to her own happinefs, and an 
habitual fubmiffion to Mr. Daubeny's influence on 
her family. But feeing that no arguments or 
confideration for her had effect on him, me de- 
termined at length to act for herfelf. It was 
never denied cc that her mother declared her to be 
* f her own miftrefs, and that Mr. Meade would 
*' be received as her fon-in-law."* But flie knew 

* Mrs. Barnfton's letter in 1796, quoted hereafter. 



[ 33 ] 



much more ; " that her mother did once abfo- 
cc lutely give her full and free confent " and, 
ce that not one fpecific objeftion was ever made 
" to Mr. Meade on her -mother s account. " 

In confequence therefore of her determination 
to aft for herfelf, flie came from her uncle's houfe 
to Bath in January 1 791, accompanied by fome 
of her uncle's family, who were anxious that her 
mother fhould fee the whole affair in a true and 
fair light. But the Bifhop of Lincoln argues, 
" that fhe having given way at that time to her 
" mother, therefore that any flander Ihe might 
" afterwards have heard, could not be a caufe 
" of her not marrying at a future time." On this 
ground Mr. Meade meets the Bifhop j and would 
rejoice, if on this, or on any one point, his Lord- 
fhip would take his ftand like a man; prove its 
truth, or acknowledge its falfehood, to fpare the 
fliame of endlefs contention. Mifs Barnfton did 
give way at that time, but certainly not to her mo- 
ther. Her mother was not even fpoken to, when 
me gave up. Her relations were prevented from 
taking any fteps for her by the circulation of whis* 
pers refpe&ing a will, for which they were wholly 
unprepared, and which were fo alarming, that 
they thought it needlefs even to mention to Mrs. 
Barnfton the objeft that brought them to Bath. 
As they are at this time alive and well, they can. 
themfelves inform the Bifhop of the faft. Theft 



[ 34 j 



whifpers were firft conveyed at the time to Mifs 
Barnfton by a Dr.Hanfter,a phyfician, who aifured 
her " that Mr. Meade's character was loll, and 
cc that her perfifting in her attachment to him 
<c would kill her mother.'' Dr. Hanfter was a 
foreigner, who knew nothing of Mr. Meade, but 
from Mr. Daubeny, in whofe houfe he was a 
vifitor, and from whence he ufually went every 
day to vifit Mrs. Barnfton! 

Mifs Barnfton then yielded without an effort, 
notwithftanding her refolutions; but {he cau- 
tioufly avoided even to hint to thofe under Mr. 
Daubeny's influence, that flie did fo on account 
of the flander ; which would in fact have been 
to unite with thofe who were active againft Mr. 
Meade, in deftroying his character. She therefore 
let it be underftood that fhe gave way on account 
of her mother > and for family peace ; without faying 
a word of the flander, by which fhe knew that 
her mother and the others of her family were 
poifoned. For it was then, as ever afterwards, 
her earneft defire to conceal as much as flie could 
from thofe who propagated thefe ftories, the ef- 
fect they had on her own mind, or the perfualion 
flie had of their effect on others; for, as fhe ex- 
preffed herfef in a letter to the Rev. Mr. Hooker, 
" Triumph as it feems to Mr. Daubeny, to me 
" it only conveys horror and agitation." Thofe 
in her confidence 3 not thofe who were practifing 



/ 



t 35 ] 



againft her happinefs, were made acquainted all 
through with every fentiment of her heart, as ap- 
pears by her letters to them, which have been 
already printed/' and will appear again. 

Having thus given up all expe&ation, with a 
profpeft fo hopelefs, and having her choice of two 
reafons to affign for yielding, fhe faid, " that it 
<c w r as on account of her mother s quiet and hapfd- 
" nefs;" for fhe faw no occafion to fay more. 

It thus appears that Mifs Barnfton's heart had 
a fevere conflict, to fuffer, in the early part of the 
bufinefs, between affection for a man, whom, after 
fixteen years acquaintance, fhe had chofen for her 
hufband; and fubmiffion to a mother, who, after 
having once confented, was unjuflly and cruelly 
biafTed againft him by one whom till that time 
fhe believed to be her fincereft and moft affect- 
ionate friend. Her mother's confent had been 
no fooner given, than Mr. Daubeny declared that 
he would break up all connection with the family 
forever if Mr. Meade was received into it; and 
Mifs Barnfton, though her own miftrefs, had 
given way to preferve family peace ; hoping that 
time, and the facrifice me endeavoured to make s 
would foften Mr. Daubeny's refentment, and re- 
move the objections he had raifed againft Mr. 
Meade; and that the affair might be re-affumed 
under more favourable circumftances. But Mr. 

* In Mr. Meade's pamphlet, in 1794* 
D 2 



[ 36 j 



Daubeny's oppofition continuing inflexible, and 
her relations perceiving the ill ftate of her health 
and fpirits, and encouraging her not to compli- 
ment her happinefs away to a man who did not 
appear to feel for her, (he went to Bath in January 
1 79 1, as is juft related, and found her opponent, 
who was prepared for her coming, provided with 
jrrefiftible means to counteraft her ; for as (he faid 
in a letter to Mrs. Daubeny, " When I came to 
" Bath to vindicate Mr. Meade, where he was 
" not to blame, I heard frefli alarms about his 
<c chara&er, and was anxious they mould not 
(€ appear to come from Mr. Daubeny." But can 
the Bifliop of Lincoln fay what elfe but the flander 
induced the Sawbridge family at that time to retire 
without efFe&ing their purpofe ? or Mrs. Meade 
to give up the freedom of her choice, which fhe 
and they came to affert? 

And was it unnatural that a woman of common 
fenfe and feeling mould make fome enquiry in 
the courfe of time into thefe charges againft a 
man to whom fhe had been attached? That fhe 
did fo, is very certain; and her relations knew it. 
It was not to Mr. Daubeny, or to thofe that were 
governed by him, that fhe opened herfelf. She 
even requefted her Aunt Ravenhill, in a letter 
written a few months after, " not to let her filter 
tfc Mary know what fhe did, for that that would 
* c be as bad as letting Mr, Daubeny know it ^ and 



C 37 J 



cc that (he was fure that her brother-in-law Mr. 
ff Sikes would have exerted himfelf more for her* 
" but that he was afraid of offending Mr. Dau- 
" beny by it." 

In a little time, however, Mifs Barnfton difco- 
vered that moft of the charges againft Mr. Meade 
were falfe, and the reft probably fo; and her af- 
fections and her former determinations confe- 
quently revived. And as flie became more fen- 
fible of the unjuft means that were pra&ifed againft 
her hapinefs, fhe was the more determined to aft 
for herfelf, as foon as an opportunity mould offer. 

But Mr. Daubeny, who watched every fluctua- 
tion and movement of her mind, laid before her, 
in June 1791, for the firft time, all the proofs in 
detail of Mr. Meade's fuppofed guilt ; which (he 
had before heard more vaguely, but which now- 
appeared of fuch a nature, that fhe faw his cha- 
racter was irretrievably gone in her family, and 
that all her plans of happinefs muft be given up 
as loft. Then it was that fhe wrote to Mrs. 
Gunning, to defire Mr, Meade " not to think of 
f« her, but to defend his character for as Mrs. 
Gunning wrote to Mr. Meade, * f Mifs Barnfton 
cc tells me, that you are now charged with per- 
" jury and forgery ; that an account has been fent 
" to Mr. Coham, and Mr. Blayneyj and that 
tc Dr. Bridle advifes the Daubeny's to pufh the 



[ 38 ] 



a affair into a court of law."* After this it was* 
that for fome months every letter Mifs Barnfton 
wrote to her confidential friends expreffed the 
anguifh of her mind, and the heavy charges againft 
Mr. Meade. It was about this time that her coufin 
Mr. Ravenhill advifed her " to guard herfelf in 
" the will affair;" and that Mr. Hooker told her, 
* 6 that if every thing elfe could be made eafy, the 
" will affair could never be cleared up;" " that 
sc he advifed her to guard herfelf with caution;" 
and told her, " that he underftood from Mr. 
" Daubeny, that Mr. Meade's friends, Coham and 
cc Blayney, had declared themfelves unfavourably 
<c towards him." It was about this time alfo that 
her aunt Ravenhill told her, " either that Mr. 
" Meade was a very bad man, or a very injured 
" man." 

It availed Mifs Barnfton nothing that in fome 
timefhe herfelf fawreafons to believe him innocent. 
The mifchief was done. Had fhe thought of 
marrying Mr. Meade, not one of her family could 
or would have acknowledged him as a man of 
characler; a few of them might afterwards have 
wiflied any end put to fo difgraceful a contefl, 
when the caufe was going into a court of law; 
but not one would have openly acknowledged 
him to be a man of character, or have taken any 
ftep that would mark him as fuch. And when 

f Originals in Mr. Mead^s pofleta. 



[ 39 ] 



Mrs. Gunning, with the belt intentions to all 
parties, " advifed Mifs Barnfton to marry Mr. 
" Meade me replied, cc that me could never 
" think of marrying a man whofe character was 
" under fuch a cloud." 

Determined, however, as me was, not to marry 
him, (lie was equally determined not to be made 
an inftrument of giving a death-blow to his cha- 
racter; and when Mrs. Daubeny had written to 
her that Mr. Meade's brothers-in-law were going 
to (hut their doors againft him on the will bulinefs 5 
and with fevere unkindnefs infulted her about 
his character, MifsBarnfton felt it the more poign- 
antly, as me was confcious of having always fa- 
crificed her own peace but too much to Mrs. 
Daubeny's hufband. And perfuaded, that if it 
had not been on her account, Mr. Meade would 
never have been attacked, (he was ftill more 
wounded by Mr. Daubeny, who wrote in reproach 
and refentment to Archdeacon Coham, for ven- 
turing to fay in her family that Mr. Meade was 
innocent refpecting the will. Refolved therefore, 
at leaft, that her name and conduct mould not 
be made ufe of by them in purfuing Mr. Meade 
with vengeance, me anfwered Mrs. Daubeny in 
October 1791, " that fhe would not have it faid 
" (meaning in the world) that me gave Mr. Meade 
" up becaufe he was infamous, but that fhe 
* c yielded to her mother $ declaring her conviction 

/ 



C 40 ] 



of his Innocence and honour." The meaning 
of thefe expreffions is explained and confirmed 
by her conduft, and by all her letters written at 
the fame time. To Mrs. Gunning fhe wrote in 
September 1 79 1 : — <c They have broke up Mr. 
< ( Meade's reputation among my friends. I can- 
ftf not flatter myfelf with a chance of any turn. 
u I wrote to my mother that nothing would make 
" me forget her happinefs, but that if Mr. Meade 
<c was acquitted with honour, my attachment mud 
e f remain as before." To her mother, in the fame 
month:—" If Mr. Meade's character mould be 
" proved clear as noon-day, my regards muft re- 
" main unchangeable." And to her aunt Raven- 
hill, in March 1792: — " I confider it neceffary to 
" my own honour and charaElcr, that Mr. Meade 
<' mould clear himfelf." 

But the Bifhop of Lincoln catches eagerly at 
the above detached expreffions to her filler, and 
argues from them that the flander uttered by 
Mr. Daubeny did not injure Mr. Meade in her 
opinion, or prevent a marriage. But what elfe 
prevented a marriage? or for what other purpofe, 
but to prevent it, was the flander related by Mr. 
Daubeny, who, as the Bifhop now fays, <c did 
cc not believe it." Did Mifs Barnfton's private 
or partial opinion, fuppofing it to be as decided 
as fhe chofe to exprefs it to her filler, undo the 
effeft of the calumny; wipe away fufpicions* and 



[ 41 ] 



reftore Mr. Meade's chara&er with her mother, 
with her connexions, and with the world? Was 
every bar removed to her plans of happinefsj and 
did file conlider it unneceftary to her chara&er 
that Mr. Meade's mould be cleared ? The anfvver 
will be found, not only in her conduct and in her 
oath, but in the letters which (he eonftantly wrote 
after the time of hearing the ilancler from Mr, 
Daubeny in June 1791.* ct If Mr. Meade does 
" not clear himfelf of thefe dreadful charges, I 
* c forfeit my character in being attached to him," 
faysflie,in a letter to Mrs. Gunning, in July 1791,. 
To Archdeacon Coham, about the fame time, 
" It is a juftice I owe to myfelf to enquire and. 
** examine into fuch charges as now appear againft 
H Mr. Meade." To the fame, " I owe it to my 
" own honour to have thefe points cleared up— 
" he is now charged w 7 ith robbery, perjury, and 
" forgery." To the Rev. Mr. Hooker, " Tri- 

umph as it feems to Mr. Daubeny, to me it 
*' conveys only agitation and horror; proof alone 
<c can make me yield my opinion, whatever I may 
*/ do of my will and inclination." To Mrs. Gun- 
ning, in July 179 1, (c My mother cannot bear to 
€C have any fubjecl: between brothers and lifters 
<c to agitate her. Mr. Daubeny fays, he has 
u fearched the matter to the bottom, and the 

refult is, the whole family are to fhut their doors 

t The original? are i» Mr, Meade'? pQffeffion, 



[ * ] 

V 

*' againfl: Mr. Meade." To the fame, Cf I am ftill 
€£ defirous of proving Mr. Meade worthy of my 
<£ regards. The inward triumph and confolation 
" this affords me, is almoft beyond the pain of 
u difappointment." To the fame, " Mr. Hooker 
" fays, if Mr. Meade has the fpirit of a man, he 
€C muft wifli to clear himfelf in the eyes of my 
" friends, or I forfeit my characler in being at- 
tached to him. He owes it to me, and to 
« himfelf. My friends are perfuaded that Mr. 
" Daubeny only regards my happinefs." To the 
Rev. Mr. Meade, " Sir, if you regard your own 
" honour, and that of your brother and family, 
<e defire all his refpeclable friends to give tefti- 
" mony to the world of his chara&er. Do not 
" conceal an atom of what is alleged, as it leads 
" to fufpicion. My friends fuppofe him guilty 
cc of the loweft, bafeft crimes. It is not enough 
for me that his moral honefty is proved ; I 
iC would have it appear to the world, that to 
<e fufpecl fuch a man as your brother is calumny. ,, 
To her Mother in September 1791, " Should 
C£ Mr. Meade prove guilty of one of thofe heavy 
<c charges, my regard muft vanim of courfe; as 
" I truft it is impoffible I could ever love vice 
" under any form; but mould his characler 
c< be proved clear as noon-day, I confefs my re- 
cc gards muft remain unchangeable." To her 
Aunt Ravenhill, a few months later, I look 



[ 43 ] 

**' upon it as neceffary to my character as Jus 
* ( own, that he clears himfelf, and I have ever 
* c told him fo." 

Can there be a doubt then, that me not only 
heard the flander, but that it affecled her mind 
and conduct? Was the (hocking crime of perjury 
ever imputed to a Chriftian woman on more fri- 
volous grounds? 

When queftioned on her oath, why me had not 
married Mr. Meade, (he declared that the flander 
againft his character was the caufe. Slander, the 
origin of which fhe never pretended to account 
for; but which fhe firft heard vaguely and in 
whifpers from Dr. Hanfter, but afterwards in full 
particulars from Mr. Daubeny : the effeft of this 
flander on her mother, on her connexions, and on 
herfelf, as well as on the world, this prevented 
her marrying Mr. Meade. 

<€ I know," fays fhe in a letter to Mrs. Raven- 
hill, " the poifon of fufpicion that has been fpread 
cc on your mind, and on my mother's." 

<c My friends," fays fhe to Mr. Hooker, in July 
1 79 1, " are perfuaded into a belief that Mr, 
<c Meade is the moll execrable villain on earth." 

Mrs. Barnfton, in September 1 791, writes to 
Mifs Barnfton, " the thoughts of Mr. Meade 
6C coming into my family affii&s my heart; nothing 
** can juftify his conduct." In October 1791, 
Archdeacon Coham wrote to Mifs Barnfton., " Mr, 



[ 44 ] 



" Meade is now with nie, but if he (hould not 
<c clear himfelf, my doors mull be fhut to 
<c him. I (hall urge him to the niceft inveftigatiom 
" From the long habit of friend (hip, from the 
* c thorough knowledge I had of him and his wife, 
" I jeft under the fulleft conviftion of his inno- 
4C cence, and no labour of mine mail be wanting 
f c to make it appear to the world." 

How Mrs. Barnfton's mind was really poifoned 
by the flander, is nothing to Mrs. Meade. She 
believed it was fo poifoned, and had reafon to be 
convinced of it; and before the Bifhop of Lincoln 
fhould have prefumed to pronounce as he did 
againft Mrs. Meade, he ought to have known, 
whether or not (he intended to facrifice herfelf to 
Mr. Daubeny's influence over her mother, if no 
flander had been uttered a gain ft Mr. Meade, and 
affected his character. When Mifs Barnfton was 
aflced in Court, whether fhe mould marry Mr. 
Meade after the trial; me could not anfwer a 
queftion which depended on the verdict, and 
therefore declined it. But it was probably fup- 
pofed from thence, as well as from the impreffion 
the trial made, that the marriage was not irrepa- 
rably loft. But it was admitted that it had been 
prevented, and the Jury brought in their verdict 
accordingly, with 500I. damages, exprefsly for 
the jlander, and for the lofs of marriage. But if 
they hacj fupDofed that the marriage was 



[ 45 ] 



absolutely and for ever loft, the damages would 
have been for many thoufand pounds. 

The Bifhop' s injinuation that Mifs Barnfton fwore 
that the marriage was altogether loft, feems only 
defigned for the fake of the (hocking imputations 
that follow. If Hie wanted proof againft his 
Lordfhip, he himfelf fupplies it, that fhe fwore 
no fuch thing; when he recites, that on being 
alked whether fhe fhould marry Mr. Meade or 
not after the trial, (lie neither anfwered yes or no, 

Mifs Barnfton's mifery at its being a trial atlazv, 
and not before friends, will be hereafter explained. 
But -never w 7 as an appeal to law more neceffary! 
Until it took place, no relation could fupport her 
choice, no friend could confcientioufly juftify her. 
Even that excellent man who acled as her father, 
even he would not have performed that office, if 
Mr. Meade had not firft eftablifhed his chara£ler 
by bringing it to the proof.* Lord Kenyon ex- 
prefsly declared that Mr. Meade could not do 
otherwife ; and the Bifhop of Durham himfelf, 
whom Mr. Daubeny confulted eleven years ago, 
as his bifhop, gave it under his hand, after atten- 
tively examining both fides, " that it was not 
<c owing to Mr. Meade or his friends, that the 

trial was not a private and amicable ont."f 

* See Mr. Goddard's letter.^*. /Jj , 
f The original is in Mr. Meade's poffeffion-, 



[ 46 ] 



Bat the neceility of a trial at Jaw has been 
proved by the event. For if, in oppofition to a 
verdi6t before Lord Kenyon and a fpecial jury, 
Mr. Daubeny has ftill ventured to infinuate his 
old charges under the guife of reafonable fufpi- 
clons, what would he not do if Mr. Meade had 
not appealed to the laws of his country? Then 
would his enemies have attacked him with fome 
colourable pretences; and afferting that he had 
facrificed his character for a wife, might charge 
him with not defending it, when the opportunity 
was in his power. 

The infmuation that Mifs Barnfton was a party 
in going to law, is untrue. She appeared in 
court with grief and forrow, fubpoenaed like the 
reft of her family, and required on oath to give 
evidence as a witnefs. And if, not only every 
relation and friend of Mr. Meade's demanded a 
legal inveftigation, but if Mifs Barnfton's confi- 
dential connexions and friends were alfo equally 
earneft that fhe fhould guard herfelf eautioufly, 
until the obje6f. of it was cleared up; if fhe her- 
felf " thought it neceflary to her own character/* 
* ( a juftice due to her own honour," " a juftice fhe 
" owed to herfelE," that Mr. Meade mould appear 
in the world above the fufpicion of guilt and 
infamy : if every effort made by herfelf, and by 
thofe relations who interfered to promote a mar- 
riage, on the ground of Mr. Meade being received 



t 47 ] 



as a man of character, failed, bccaufe the condi- 
tion could not be obtained ; what could me con* 
fcientioufly fay prevented her marriage with Mr. 
Meade, or what elfe can the Bifhop, or any man 
of common fenfe or honefty fay, but the effeft of 
the flander on his character ? 

The law-fuit removed all objection to Mr. 
Meade, as was forefeen by thofe who had rea- 
fon to flatter themfelves that he mould be able 
to defend himfelf when his caufe was brought 
before the public. 

" Dr. Bridle has advifed pufhing the affair into 
cf a Court," fays Mrs. Gunning in a letter to Mr. 
Meade; " I am glad of it, as I know you can clear 
* c yourfelf." " Haflen your journey to England/' 
fays Archdeacon Coham," and at prefent treat the 
" fcandal with contempt ; it can pafs with none 
<c but thofe that are Grangers to your chara&er." 

That a trial at law was neceffary, was a fub- 
je£l much deplored by Mr. Meade; for, as he 
wrote to one of his brothers-in-law, "he would 
<c have thought nothing humiliating that might 
" bring brothers back to friendfliip." But when 
threatened with " the feverity of juftice; zvitk 
" being held up to the world in his proper co~ 
" lours y 9 what could Mr. Meade, or what would 
any man do, who had a chara&er in the world 
worth defending? Thofe alone are anfwerable 
for the confequences, who invent or propagate 



[ 43 .3 



{lander; or who, hearing and giving credit and 
fanclion to it, and refuting, either publicly or 
privately to acknowledge their miftakes, render 
fuch legal refource unavoidable. 

But now to proceed to the Bifhop's paper. 
His Lordfhip, diftruftful, as it mould feem, of 
proving againft Mrs. Meade, all he endeavours to 
prove, ventures to adopt the afifertion, that " fhe 
* c confeffed her own criminality, at an interview 
" fhe had with her mother ; and that Mr. Dau- 
" beny, and two ladies, wrote accounts of what 
cc paffed there, which agreed in fubftance,* with- 
<c out their having feen each other s zvriting till finiJJied?* 
Suppofmg this laft to be true, does it prove that 
there was no previous agreement, no undef- 
ftanding between them ? How came declared 
enemies of Mrs. Meade into her mother's room, 
when fhe went, after an abfence of thirteen years, 
to implore her bl effing, and had a previous pro?nife of 

* The Bifhop is miftaken. The three accounts do not agree* 
Mrs. Meade finds proof even in the teftimony of her enemies ta 
protecl her. Mr. Day, a refpectable magiftrate near Bath, having 
feen the Mifs Mafons' account, was of opinion, that even their 
own report did not convey to his mind any idea that Mrs. Meade 
made the confeffion as imputed to her. Yet Mr. Daubeny's ac- 
count roundly afierts, " that Mrs. Meade admitted that fie gained 
" a verdict for Mr. Meade hy her own notorioujly fatfe evidence? * 
And a third account, namely Mrs. M. Barnfton's, makes Mrs, 
Meade's not co?ifefiing, a ground for fhutting her mother's doors 
againft her and her children. 



[ 49 ] 



feeing her alone ? How came three perfons, living 
much together, to draw a formal ftatement of fuch 
a fcene at all, without previous concert? What 
did they go for ? Why were utter Grangers to 
Mrs. Meade fele&ed to furprife her? If witneffes 
were neceffary, why not have fome unprejudiced 
relations, or family connexion, or friends, or fome 
temperate clergyman, rather than two ladies, new 
acquaintances of the family, but who had diftin- 
guifhed themfelves as mod determined opponents 
of Mrs. Meade, and fticklers for Mr. Daubeny? 

But let any one fuppofe himfelf placed in Mrs* 
Meade's fituation at that interview, and then judge 
of her danger! With much difficulty and ad- 
drefs fhe had, once in twelve years, obtained a 
promife to fee her mother, and to fee her alone. 
She had dated* her object to be " to throw her- 
** felf at her feet, to folicit her bleffing for herfelf 
" and her children, and to entreat her influence 
" in reconciling the family." Contrary to pro- 
mife and to honour, fhe found herfelf introduced 
by furprife, without friend or witnefs, into a room 
with five perfons, who had taken a decided part 
againft her character , perfons, who from that part 
which they had taken againft her, could not be 
confidered admiffible as witneffes; one being a 
party, another the wife of the party, the third, for 

* In a letter to her mother^ the week before* 
E 



C 50 ] 



twelve years the mo ft ufeful and decided partifan, 
and the two Mifs Mafons, whom Mrs. Meade 
had never before feen, having diftinguifhed them- 
felves as Mr. Daubeny's moft zealous advocates 
and fupporters, depofitaries of his papers, em- 
barked in his caufe, and having on other occafions 
been led by their ardour againft Mr. and Mrs. 
Meade to fuch lengths, as to carry the fubjeft 
into their neighbourhood in the country,* with a 
degree of heat and earneftnefs, as if they had 
been actually principals in it. 

If all this appear found to the Bifhop of Lin- 
coln, he probably Hands alone in his judgment. 

The Biihop fays,f Cf that Mrs. Meade fwore 
6e that her mother gave her full and free confent 
" to her marrying, but that in confequence of 
" what Mr. Daubeny dated to her in June, 1791, 
" me gave it up;" and on this foundation of fand, 
his Lordihip, with great induftry, erects a fuper- 
ftru&ure, which a breath overturns. 

How his Lordfhip was led into this ilatemenr, 
is not eafy to fay ; certain it is that he Humbles 
at the very threfhold, his whole argument refting 
on a confufion, introduced by a dextrous fup- 
preffion of dates. 

Mifs Barnflon Hated her mother's confent to 
be given in June, 1790; and Mr. Daubeny's con- 



# At Orchardleigh. 



t See Appendix. 



[ 51 ] 



verfation with her, to which the Bifhop alludes* 
to have been in June, 1 79 1 . Does the Bifliop 
mean that (lie did not marry in June, 1790, be- 
caufe of flander which fhe was to hear in June, 
1 79 1? Would a Court or Jury tolerate fuch 
nonfenfe? The manifefto itfelf, (i. e. a paper 
signed by Mrs. Barnfion, and beginning with 
WHEREAS) which the Bifliop quotes fo empha- 
tically, and which he feems to confider as Mrs. 
Barnfton's, becaufe it is faid to be signed by her, 
even that admits, " that the marriage was given 
" up twice in that interval." Of courfe Mifs 
Barnfton muft have refumed her intentions of 
marrying after 1790, and fomething muft have 
prevented her. And before his Lordfhip can 
fucceed in his endeavours to prove Mrs. Meade 
perjured, he muft prove, " that he knew her 
" heart better than herfelfj" and " that after the 
" fpring of 1 79 1, ihe never had thoughts of mar- 
" rying Mr. Meade, and that calumny had na 
" efTeft upon her." But of that, thofe will judge 
who have read the preceding account, with the 
following extracts from her letters written after 
that period, and immediately after fhe had heard 
the charges again!! Mr. Meade in June 1791, 
from Mr. Daubeny. To Mrs. Gunning,* in July 

* The originals are in Mr. Meade's poffeffion, having fortunately 
been indorfed, and fet by, by the Rev. Dr. Gunning, who gave them 
to Mr. Meade. 



E 2 



[ 52 J 



1791, " a friend of mine is unhappy, left I ftiould 
€c make engagements before Mr. Meade's inno- 
€C cence is proved. If he does not clear himfelf 
€C of thofe dreadful charges, I forfeit my character 
€< in being attached to him." In another letter to 
the fame, July 1791, ee I can hear nothing openly 
" of Mr. Meade's vindication or condemnation 
ef but by Mr. Daubeny, who has already pafTed 
st fuch decifive fentence, that he thinks it wilful 
6i obftinacy not to believe what he and his bro- 
<c thers think fuch (bong proofs. Thofe that 
cc know him will not believe that for the fake of 
" giving away a few hundreds, he would be guilty 
ec of perjury, forgery, and other dreadful crimes. 
ci The Daubenys and my family alone will think 
cc him guilty. It feems the Daubenyshave thought 
€f fit to convey their fufpicions to Mr. Coham and 
Cf Dr. Blayney." Again to the fame, in the fame 
month, <£ Mr. Hooker fays, that I mould tell my 
CJ family that the peace of my mind depends on Mr. 
cc Meade's clearing himfelf." To Archdeacon Co- 
ham, in July 1 79 1, " it is ?ijujlice I owe to my f elf 
<e to enquire and examine into fuch charges as 
Cf now appear againfl Mr. Meade ; it would ill be- 
" come a woman of thirty years of age to be 
" blindly attached to a per/on, who, if proved guilty 
" of fuch perfidious villainy, ought to be deferted 
" by friends and foes." To Mrs. Daubeny, in 



[ 53 ] 



July 1 79 1, Cff do not think me obftinately bent on 
tc fhutting my eyes ; I mould abhor villainy as 
" much as you, in any one." To the Rev. Mr, 
Hooker, in July 1 791, " it is not enough that my 
" friends are perfuaded into a belief that Mr. 
" Meade is the mofi execrable villain on earthy 
" guilty of perjury, forgery, hypocrify, and deceit; 
" I am called upon to hear thefe dreadful charges, 
" Nor fhall I wonder at your being impreffed with 
<c doubt and apprehenfion that I am blinded, and 
<c that Mr. Daubeny is right. But you know me 
" too well to believe that any partiality could force 
ci me to unite myfelf to vice; or induce me, at the 
" age of thirty-one, to take as a hufband a man I 
<c could even doubt of being guilty of fuch dread- 
" ful crimes?"* 

In July 1 791, Mrs. Gunning wrote to Mr. 
Meade, " How am I mocked at the perfecution 
<c I hear is carried on againft you ! For God's 
" fake come as foon as you can to England, and 
" clear yourfelf. Regard nothing fo much as 
" your character. They have written, Mifs Barn- 
-** fton tells me, to Mr. Coham and Dr. Blayney. 
" Dr. Bridle has, advifed them to pum it in a 

* The originals of thefe letters are ftill in exiftence, and for the 
moll part in Mr. Meade's poffeffion. Except Archdeacon Coham 9 
the parties are living; but he, as well as Dr. Blayney conveyed to 
Mr. Meade what papers they had on the fubjecl;. 



[ 54 ] 



" Court.* I am not forry for it, as I know 
cc you can clear yourfelf. I believe you have 
" been fadly fet forth to Mr. S. Mifs Barnfton 
" fays, they now accufe you of forgery. I would 
" do but every thing to gain my character. \ ou 
" have been too Jong mild. I know you will 
cc take what I fay as it is meant 3 and I a flu re 
" you that things are gone fo far, that your pre- 
cc fence is abfolutely neceffary. Your only bull- 
" nefs is to prove what they fay about the will to 
" be falfe: and when that is fettled, and your 
<c innocence is cleared, what objections can fhe 
cc have to make you and herfelf fatisfaction ? 
" But llie fays it will be impoffible for them ever 
" to be reconciled. I am fhocked at the agita- 
cc tions into which Mifs Barnfton is continually 
« thrown." 

When it is confidered that all thefe letters,f 
and a great many more to the fame efFe£t, v/ere 
written after the end of June 1791, that is, imme- 

* This was probably another impofltion on Mifs Barnfton, Dr. 
Bridle having mentioned Mr. Meade with friend/hip in his will, and 
left him a legacy. 

t The following is an extract from Mifs Barnfton's journal, in a 
note which (he conveyed at the time to Mrs. Gunning. June. After 
reciting two meffages from Mr. Daubeny, and having at length 
gone to his houfe, and ftated what he had told her there, fhe adds, 
(t that fhe had never before heard the affair from himfelf, and that 
" (he mould have been reproachedif mefhuther ears from conviction. 
" The evidence collected would ftartle himfelf, (Mr. Meade) if he 



[ 55 ] 

diately after Mifs Barnfton's hearing the ilander 
from Mr. Daubeny; the world will judge whe- 
ther me was not attached to Mr. Meade, and 
whether fhe did not hear certain Chocking and 
alarming charges againfl: him, and whether, as 
flie declared upon oath, her mind and her conduct 
were not influenced by the effect which thefe 
flanderous charges produced. 

Of the Manifefio signed by Mrs. Barnfton, and 
brought forward by the Bifnop of Lincoln, it is 
right to take fome notice. And as his Lordfhip 
(who never faw her) afferts that (he was in full 
pofTeffion of her faculties, why was it only ftgned 
by her ? Who drew it up? The author peeps out 
whole-length in the very firft word, (" Whereas") 
as in every line afterwards. But the Bifnop, an- 

" was to hear it. Suppoflng all to be true, it feems impoffible to 
'* ftand out againft conviction — it fignifies nothing holding out — it 
" is blindnefs and folly — facts are plain; and I am not facrificing 
" to the anger of a prejudiced brother; for whoever calls on him 
" to give his objections, they are ready on black and white, for 
u their eonviction." 

Again, July. " Mr. Daubeny was forry to fee by my looks the 
" fubject ftill preyed on my mind; he opened the converfation at 

my Aunt's to pin me down. I could receive nothing but morti- 
" fication to hear Mr. Meade's character fet forth before my Aunt, 
" who I am fure is taught to believe Mr. Meade guilty, by her 
" anxiety that he mould clear himfelf. 

" Mr. Daubeny is gone to Bradley — what quiet and peace have 
*' I had flnce! My mother and I could go on thus for ever. If 
i( Mr. Meade does not call on his accufers, they will call on him| 
" the fignature, — Anne being turned out of the room, is odd. Some 
" fatisfa&ion I muft have, for it is impoflible not to be anxious to 
" a degree." 



[ 56 3 



ticipatlng fufpicions, fays, <e that it was written 
" before Mr. Daubeny's return from London after 
cc the trial." A perfon was convicted fome years 
ago of poifoning a baronet, principally from faying, 
& Remember, Gardener, I was in fuch a place at 
" fuch an hour." 

But did not the pod bring an account to Mrs. 
Barnfton, before Mr. Daubeny's return, even " of 
cc Mr. H. Sawbridge* foaking hands with her 
(( daughter on coming out of Court." And why 
fliould not a copy of a manifefto be as eafily fent?f 
But compare it with Mr. Daubeny's manifefto in 
Mr. Meade's pamphlet, J or with any of Mrs. 
.Barnfton's own letters or writings, and all doubt 
vanifhes ! 

But the Bifliop of Lincoln, to give importance, 
as it mould feem, to this paper, avers with pom- 
pous formality, " that it was dated the i ith of 'June 
" 1792, and signed by herfelf 7 ,? 

This manifefto fays, <c that Mr. Daubeny did 
" not influence Mrs. Barnfton againft Mr. Meade." 
But the affertion is fo contrary to known fa£ts, 
that it is not worth notice. What elfe, or who 

f See the Bifhop of Lincoln's paper, in the Appendix. 

f But to bring the point of evidence to any thing like an equa» 
Jity with Mrs. Meade ? s, will any one Jhvear that the manifefto was 
not prepared by others for Mrs. Barnfton \ofign? 

% Page 100. 



[ 57 ] 



elfe, influenced her? What other caufe did Mrs. 
Barnfton affign to Mrs. Gunning? What did 
Mr. Daubeny himfelf affign to Mrs. Gunning, 
when he endeavoured to juftify himfelf? What 
does Mrs. Barnfton herfelf mean in this manifefto, 
when her chief objection to Mr. Meade is, his 
conduct as reprefented by Mr. Daubeny? What 
did Mrs. M. Barnfton mean, the laft time Mr* 
Meade fpoke to her in prefence of Mifs Barnfton, 
in July 1790, when giving him her hand me faid, 
" Why did you not come home at once from the 
<c Continent, and fpeak to my mother in the firft 
" place, and all would have been eafy r" 

As to engagements between Mr. Meade and 
Mifs Barnfton in private, to correfpond with each 
other, how will any one venture to'affert what 
engagement patted between two perfons alone? 
The fa£r. is not true. And as for Mr. Meade's 
ufing Mrs. Barnfton ill, he defies the ingenuity 
of malice to point out the fmalleft inftance, in 
which he ever treated her but with marked re- 
fpec~t. and regard. 

In this manifefto, which is indeed a melancholy 
exhibition of weaknefs and delufion, the only- 
pertinent part is what relates to the confent; the 
reft is mere aflertion of what Mrs. Barnfton had 
been told, and would not or could not inquire 
into. Mrs. Barnfton's mind had been filled with 
prejudices againft her daughter, and the Bifhop 



t 58 ] 

would have thefe prejudices received as proofs. 
On the authority of ajjertions in thefe papers, his 
Lord 111 ip argues that Mifs Barnflon never received 
her mother's confent to marry, and therefore that 
flie was perjured* But the falfehood of this 
mocking charge was fully explained eleven years 
ago, in a pamphlet which Mr. Meade then wrote 
in reply to one by Mr. Daubeny. 

It was with inexpreffible grief and horror that 
Mrs. Meade then heard that her beloved and ho- 
noured mother had been prevailed on, by the 
afcendancy which Mr. Daubeny had over her 
mind, to throw her weight into the fcale againft 
her child, who for more than thirty years had 
poffeffed her unbounded love and confidence, and 
to difclaim the account of that confent as un- 
true, and merely fabricated for the occafion. Mrs. 
Meade had too much reverence for her mother, 

* The infatuation of Mr. Daubeny's partifans would indeed be 
unaccountable in drawing this affair again into public view, but that 
they feem to flatter themfelves that a paper figned by a mother 
againft her daughter is an argument which muft ftagger people. 
But when this very paper is fairly and fully conlidered, it will pro- 
bably turn out to be an argument of no fmall weight againft them- 
felves. They probably build alfo on the death of Mr. Meade's 
witn'effes and friends. The lofs of thefe laft is indeed fuch as he 
mall ever feel ; but his caufe is ftill fecure. They have left their 
teftimonies for>his protection. The documents and authorities re- 
ferred to are in Mr. Meade's poffeffion : they were fortunately 
preferved by the good fenfe of thofe in whole hands they were. 
Where the few original letters in the hands of Mr. Daubeny's friends 
are quoted, it is from the original drafts in Mr. Meade's poffeffioiu 



[ S9 ] 



and too high an opinion of her intentional vera- 
city, to fuppofe that (he did not believe what fhe 
then wrote; fujijiofing that JJie did really write it. 
But fome allowance is to be made for w 7 ant of 
recollection in regard to a tranfadtion of more than 
tw r o years (landing, and the failure of memory in 
an aged woman, between feventy and eighty, 
whofe memory, never good, latterly failed her 
manifeftly.* Nor is her firnple denial, with a view" 
to fupport Mr. Daubeny, to be fet in oppofition 
to the beft evidence that can be had, where no 
witnefs was prefent; and alfo againft the folemn 
uncontradicted oath of a thinking and religious 
woman, fupported alfo by reafon, common fenfe, 
and natural feeling. But haraffed with the fub- 
je£r. as Mrs. Barnilon was, at a very advanced 
age, and every day more and more irritated againft 
Mr. and Mrs. Meade; furrounded by perfons 
devoted to Mr. Daubeny, and fubjeft to him; 
prepofTe fifed by his paffion, and corrupted by his 
prejudices, me forgot every thing, or faw every 
thing through a falfe medium, and gave herfeif 
up wholly to Mr. Daubeny : fo that, asMrs. Meade's 
much-loved brother-in-law Mr. Sikes w 7 rote to her 
in July 1 793, when " 1 attempted to interfere, and 
" fuggefted to Mrs. Barnfton that miftakes might 

* If theBifliop want evidence of this, Mr. Meade can fatisfyhim 
by the testimony of themoft difpaflionate and the moft competent 
witnefs. 



[ 60 ] 



" have occurred, fhe flopped me fhort, and 
" would hear nothing." And other branches of 
the family having made fimiJar efforts had the 
like ill fuccefs. And to fuch a pafs was Mr. 
Daubeny's influence at length openly carried, that 
Mrs. Meade was direSed " to addrefs to him any 
fic letters fhe may have to write to her mother in 
" future;" proving what the fagaciousMr. Burke 
obferves, " that if we [termit any fierfon to tell us 
" his ftory morning and evening for one twelvemonth > 
" he will become our mqfter" Mrs. Barnfton poffibly 
forgot alfo that me told Mrs. Gunning, at the 
'firft application to her, that " her only objection 
* c was on account of Mr. Daubeny ; and that 
** ihe never made one folid objection of her own 
<c at any time to Mr. Meade." She forgot perhaps 
that her houfe was once as his home; and that 
while he travelled with her daughter, fhe was told 
by Mrs. Gunning and Mrs. Coham, that it was 
faid they were to make a match, and that ihe 
received the account with merely remarking, that 
fhe had not heard of it; and then, as at all times, 
fpeaking of Mr. Meade with kindnefs and efteem. 

The converfation between Mifs Barnfton and 
her mother when the confent was given, toojc 
place in June 1790. Mifs Barnilon mentioned 
it to Mr. Daubeny immediately, who faid, " that 
" he knew her mind better;" and alked her, "what 
i( did {he think of him and his wife 3 were they to 



L 61 ] 

" be facrijiced?" She mentioned it, and alluded to 
it in letters to her mother* and others, about 
that time, and none of them thought of denying 
it until after the trial, when it was confidered as 
neceffary to Mr. Daubeny that it mould be denied. 
She told it to Mrs. William Sawbridge at a time 
when it was impoffible to forefee that fuch com- 
munication could have any confequence; to the 
Rev. Henry Sawbridge, of Wickharn, as appears 
by his letter ; to her coufms at Haddon, who well 
remember it ; and to her fifter Mrs. Sikes, who, tho* 
warmly in Mr.Daubeny's intereft, had the juftice 
and humanity to declare it, when applied to. 

Extracl of a Letter from Mrs. Wm, Sawbridge. 

" My dear Mrs. Meade, Wefton,0&. 27, 1 793. 

" I remember hearing at Haddon, fome time 
* c between the months of July 1 790, and February 
" 1 79 1, of the converfation having paffed between 
" you and Mrs. Barnfton. You left Haddon,f I 
<c believe, in February 1 791, with full expectation 
<c of reconciling all parties.^ 

" Very (incerely and very affectionately, 

" Your's, Mary Sawbridge." 

* Quoted in this book. f The houfe of Mrs. Meade's uncle. 
t It was then that Mifs Barnfton was going to Bath with fome 
of her uncle's family to avow the ftate of her affections, and her 



C 62 ] 

Extrad of a Letter from the Rev. Henrt Saivbjridge. 

" Dear Catherine, Wickham, Oct. 1793. 

" I will not attempt to call to mind the par- 
" ticular words of a converfation related to me 
" more than two years ago. But I remember 
4t you told me, in the autumn of 1790, that acon- 
<c verfation had paffed between your mother and 
<f yourfelf, in her own room, to the fame purport, if 
not in the fame words, you relate in your letter. 
< c I am, &c. Henry Sawbridge.'* 

The following is Mr. Sikes's reply to Mrs. 
Meade's requefl, that he and his wife would alfo 
vindicate her, by reminding her mother that the 
ftory was not fabricated for the occafion, as was 
afferted. 

" Dear Sifter, 

" In confequence of the a flu ranee I gave 
" you from Bath, I tranferibed from your letters 
" to my wife thofe paffages which will anfwer 
" your purpofe, and fent them to your mother. 

" Your affectionate brother, 

" Thomas Sikes." 

determination in confequence to marry, and to declare her uncle's 
fentiments in her fupport. She hoped too, that by refolute conduct: 
me might in the end reconcile the parties. But neither me nor her 
friends forefaw that a new ground of refiftance was prepared againft 
their arrival ; the charges about a will being feafonably brought 
forward, which effectually defeated her intentions at that time. 



[ 63 ] 



The following letter has reference indeed to 
another converfation, but is inferted to mew how 
well difpofed Mrs. Barnfton was to favour her 
daughter's inclinations when left to herfelf, 

Mifs Barnston to her Mother.— Haddon, Oil. 1790, 
cc I ever fliall and mull think Mr. Daubeny's 
prejudices againftMr. Meade ill-founded. And 
" when, after all, he afked me to give up Mr. 
<c Meade to oblige him 9 and him only, and when he 
€C found my attachment fo ftrong, that he feared 1 
iC Jhoidd not be able to make him the facrifice ; when 
" he heard you tell me that I was of an age to judge 
"for my [elf, and wifhed me to confult my own hajifii- 
" nefs; then, oh heavens! do I fee my friend, my 
" brother, my confidant, one of thole whom I 
" have loved beft in the world, labouring to ren- 
" der Mr. Meade odious in your eyes, in order to 
cc give a fanclion to the very active part he takes 
" againft him. I cannot but fee his cruel letter 
" in every fenfe unjuftifiable. I told him, in a 
<c letter at Weymouth, after looking over his ac- 
<c cufations in three meets, that fome were un- 
" fairly ftated, and others I had anfwered over 
" and over. I told him, that the more I reflected 
" the more I was fatisfled, that his happinefs was 
" the motive of my conduct. Attached to Mr. 
" Meade on the bed principles, not blindly, as I 
" have been told, like a girl of fifteen, but with 



[ 64 ] 



cc the deliberate judgment of a woman of thirty, 
* c what can I do? Can I facrifice my happinefs to 
cc Mr. Daubeny's anger? Think, my dear Madam, 
cc I befeech you, for my happinefs, and perfuade 
" Mr. Daubeny not to lofe fight of it. I did think 
4t the change in my health would have convinced 
** him of what I fufFered in mind; but to my 
66 grief I find him inflexible. I muft there- 
" fore apply to you, becaufe I am mod unhappy, 
" My friends* here are anxious for me to fend this' 
cc letter; and I trujl 1 ' fliall ever be able to fubfcribe 
46 my •/ "elf your mcft dutiful, becaufe no power on 
45 earth can make me otherwife than your moft 
" affectionate, daughter,! C. Barnston." 

This letter was written more than a year before 
a trial was thought of. 

The Bifliop of Lincoln fays, " There is no evi- 
cc dence of Mrs. Barnfton's confent being given, 
cc or fuppofed or underftood to be given." The 
proceedings of the Court of King's-Bench would 
have inftrufted him better. His Lord (hip con- 
ceives it €C improbable" that a very old, irritated, 
and deluded " perfon fiould forget. 9 ' But he 
thinks it very probable that Mrs. Meade invented 

* Her uncle's family, 
t It Is worthy of remark, that although Mifs Barnfton in this 
letter, as in many others, expreffes or alludes to the confent hei i 
mother had given, as a matter well known and acknowledged, yet 
her mother never denied it, nor was any denial of it pretended 
until after the trial I 



[ 65 ] 



the ftory of the confent ; and that die perjured 
herfelf deliberately, for the fiurfiofe of giving a criminal 
colour to an action brought againft the hujband of her 
fijler, her beloved favourite fijler 9 her earlieft friend^ 
and her chcfen companion till then through life! 1 1 
Is fuch a remark, even from the Bimop of Lincoln, 
worth notice? Mr. Meade, with all his refpe£t 
for his Lordfhip, could hardly read this ingenious 
argument with proper gravity. 

To the foregoing documents mall be added the 
teftimony of a letter written by Mr. Daubeny him- 
felfio Mifs Barnfton, in the fummer of 1 790, a few 
weeks after Mrs. Gunning had made application to 
Mrs. Barnjlon with Mr. Meade s addrejfes to her 
daughter. The length of the letter makes it in- 
convenient to recite the whole, it filling twelve 
folio pages. It is a laboured compoiition, written 
for the purpofe of juftifying to Mifs Barnfton's 
family Mr. Daubeny's conduct towards her and 
Mr. Meade; for his letters were generally in* 
tended for other eyes befides thofe to whom they 
were addreffed. In this letter not a fyllable is 
faid, from beginning to end, of Mrs. Barnfton 
having refufed confent, although it would have been 
a conclufive argument for him. He avers, <c that 
" Mifs Barnfton promifed him at Spa, in July or 
* Auguft 1789, that flie would not think of Mr. 
" Meade." He fays, " that me gave his wife and 
« him a moft decided proof of her affe&ion by 

F 



[ 66 ] 

* c giving up Mr. Meade, as a man with whom, 
Cf as circumftances flood between him and Mr, 
" Meade, (he could not be completely happy." 
He adds, <c that his gratitude was fo unbounded 
C( for the ftriking mark of her affeciion, that (he 
" could not fujifiofe he could ever fee the matter differ- 
ce entity'* " You told me at Spa, (he fays, in p. 4) 
" that yon would never facrifice* me or Betfey to 
" any man whatever" This was a year before the 
affair was announced to Mrs. Barnflon. In p. 5, 
he again fays, " that, on their return from Italy, 
€C fhe told him, (Mr. Daubeny) that though it 
" might coil her a little, fhe was determined 
" to give up Mr. Meade, that fhe would never 
C( facrifice either him or Betfey." " Yet no fooner 
" (fays he) did Mr. Meade appear on the ground 
" at Bath, than you behaved as if the idea of 
ce giving him up never entered into your head." 
" You told Mrs. Gunning, in my prefence, that 

* What does he mean by afTerting that Mifs Barnfton faidthat 
fhe would never facrifice him ? Does he pretend to a dominion over 
her perfon, becaufe he married her lifter ? or when he told Mrs. 
Gunning, " that Meade wanted to take away another 10,0001." 
did he imagine that Mifs Barnfton would not carry her fortune 
with her whenever fhe fhouid marry ? Mr. Daubeny's wife brought 
him treble the fortune of her lifters, but none of them talked of their 
bdngfacrificed, when fhe gave it to Mr. Daubeny. Much lefs did 
Mr. Sikes fuggeft fuch an idea, who had married another of the 
filers. Does not Mr. Daubeny himjfelf here prove the point on. 
which all turns? Mr. Meade quotes Mr. Daubeny's own words; 
whether they were uttered by Mifs Barnfton, or in the fenfe he 
gives them, is another queftion. 



C 67 ] 



<f you were ready to receive him as a hufband, but 
(( after what I had /aid, zvhat could you do." " You 
" told her that I had ufed you more cruelly than 
Ci your father would have done," &c. If Mrs. 
Barnfton had refufed her confent three or four 
weeks before, as is now pretended, it is obvious 
that Mr. Daubeny would have juftified himfelf by 
it. But he does not even hint at any fpecific ob- 
jections being ever made againft Mr. Meade in 
any refpeft. He reminds Mifs Barnfton, that at 
Geneva he told her, " that Mr. Meade " had loft 
" his affeclions for ever " that is, after fifteen years 
connexion, and after profeffions of unalterable 
efteem, in five or fix weeks Mr. Daubeny's af- 
fections were for ever loft to Mr. M^eade, when the 
former fufpected that he might like Mifs Barnfton, 
who was therefore expe&ed to facrifice her af- 
fections and her independence for ever! After a 
recital of promifes, which he had obtained at Spa 
from Mifs Barnfton, Mr. Daubeny concludes with 
an addrefs to work on her affeclions ; and a fer- 
raon to alarm her, by calling in the aid of reli- 
gious fear to induce her to fulfil thofe promifes. 
" When I am dealing with you, my dear Kitty, I 
" confider that I am dealing with a perfon who 
" has a better guide than nature to follow. The 
" world, my dear Kitty, is not the keeper of your 
" confeience, confequently ought not to be your 
es director. The world judges wrong every day; 

F 2. 



I 68 ] 



cs &nd thofe who follow the world muft perifh with 
" It. We are fliort-iighted creatures; the event 
C£ alone can determine what is beft for us. If, 
€( when we are going wrong, we defift from our 
€C courfe, this is all that is required of us; it is 
<f wilful perfeverance in error that leads to fatal 
€ f confequences. On this head, my dear Kitty, 
" you have nothing to lay to your charge. Your 
£i confcience tells you that you are now doing 
* right : and although it may coil: you fomething, 
" yet I am confident a contrary proceeding would 
" coft you more. In one cafe you fuffer at pre- 
<c fent; you deny yourfelf, but you do it on prin* 
<c ciple.* Had we not been deceived, you would\ no$ 
" be in your prefent condition. You muft know, my 
" dear Kitty, that both Betfey and myfelf have^ 
" fuffered much on your account. If you love- 
" us as we love you, you will not wim us to fuffer- 
cc more. Convince us that we are the fame to 
ec you, and all will be happy. This being the 
ce cafe, and the fubjecl: gone by, you will be eager 
" to convince us that you continue to fee us both 
" in the light in which we ought to be feen — 

* This fevere moralift feems not to recoiled a certain gentle- 
man., who was engaged two years to marry a young lady contrary 
to the wifhes of her father and mother; that the marriage was to 
take place as foon as her father mould die, and leave her an inde- 
pendence ; and that the match was only prevented by the lady 
marrying another! 

f Can he prefume, after this, to fay he never interfered? Does 
he not, in thefe words* take all on himfelf? 



£ 69 ] 



" Betfey as the mod affectionate of fitters, and 
u myfelf as the moil affectionate of brothers, and 
" fincerefi of friends* Charles Daubeny,'* 

It is not intended, in this place, to go into a 
difcuffion of the right, to which Mr. Daubeny, 
as a brother-in-law, lays claim of requiring per- 
petual or any promifes of this kind, without 
confulting any of the family, from two perfons, 
whofe age, fortune, and condition in life, rendered 
them independent. Nor is this the place to enter 
into the unjuftifiable manner by which thefe pro- 
mifes were obtained. But the impartial reader 
can judge better than Mr. Daubeny, what impres- 
fion fuch reafoning as his letter contains could 
make on the mind of Mifs Bamfton. Was there 
an argument in it that could tend to diminifh 
her regards for a man, whom Mr. Daubeny fays, 
" fhe ftromifed him to regard only in the light of 
cc a friend?" Was it juft or generous in him, even 
if the promifes had been fairly and voluntarily 
given, to hold her to them, merely for the purpofe 
of her pracrifing felf-denial ? 

The promifes are admitted. And Mifs Barn, 
fton, after her return home, unwilling to charge 
Mr. Daubeny with want of fairnefs and generofity 
in obtaining them, fought rather, and expected 
from his affection, that he would yield to her hap* 

* The original paper is in Mr. Meade's poffeffioi^ 



I 70 J 



pinefs. And from attachment to him, and to her 
family under his influence, fhe gave way to him 
too long and too much; flattering herfelf, from 
time to time, that as herhappinefs and her health 
appeared at flake, and no objections were ever 
made to Mr. Meade, Mr. Daubeny would not, 
and could not, continue inflexibly to oppofe her. 

His letter has been now quoted only to prove 
that he was, and that he confidered himfelf at that 
time as, the fole bar to Mi fa Barnfton's marrying. 

The anfwer which Mifs Barnfton wrote to Mr. 
Daubeny's long letter of three fheets, or twelve 
folio pages, is too important not to be quoted ; 
and the reader will obferve that thefe letters were 
written before any of thofe circumftances were 
forefeen, which afterwards took place ; as, the 
charges and flander about a will, the negociatioi} 
for arbitration, the law-fuit, &c. 

Mifs Barnston to the Rev. C. Daubeny. 

1790. 

" I have delayed thus long to anfwer the three 
" fheets of paper which you gave me the other 
" day, that I may have time to fubdue every fpark 
<c of warmth, which in the belt of us fometimes 
" rifes in the mind on feeing what we think 
" unjuft and heavy charges made againfl: us; and 
" that I may alfo take due time to reflect and 
^ weigh every circumftance that may have de« 



C 71 ] 



u ceived you into the opinion you have of Mr, 
" Meade and myfelf. The refult has been at- 
" tended with the utmoft fatisfa£lion to my own 
" mind. I cannot accufe myfelf of having ufed 
w you cruelly and I am as clear that Mr. Meade. 
" has not in any inftance, I am free from all 
* c engagements but thofe of my own heart. Does 
" not this account for my burfting out before 
" Mrs. Gunning, when I fat and heard you ac- 
€C cufe Mr. Meade of perjury^ and treachery ^ and 
<c deceit^ with fuch a degree of anger, as I faw 
affe&ed her prodigioufly. She faid immediately, 
€ if I had known all this, I would no more have 
'f come on fuch an embaffy than I would have 
4 flown.' Believe me, I was more fhocked for 
'* you than for Mr. Meade. You plainly told Mrs, 
- c Gunning from whence the difficulty arofe : and you 
cc fpoke to me alfo in a manner unworthy of you, 
" Confcious as I was of this, was it extraordinary 
i( that I fhould be difpleafed at your reprefenting 
cc the cafe to my mother in the manner you did?* Would 
*< it not be the height of injuftice in me to fuffer 
cc a man to be accufed of fuch crimes, when I 
fC knew them to be groundlefs, and not attempt 
" to vindicate him ! I mud and ever mail fay, 
" Mr. Meade has behaved to me in the moll: 
"honourable and generous manner; nor can I 

* The morning of Mr. Meade's arrival at Mrs. Barnfton's, where 
he went to make propofals to Mifs Barnfton, 



[ 72 ] 



€C conceive that he has done any thing by you 
cc that can poffibly juftify the anger you feem to 
cc feel againfl: him. The more I view his conduct, 
" the more I approve it.; and I am fure a time 
<c will come when you will allow that you have 
" been miftaken in your accufations. You fay 
cc you acted for the comfort of my famiiy. What ! 
<f to prejudice my mother againfl: Mr. Meade, 
" becanje you conceived I could not give him up for 
" your f elf. Was this acting with the generofity 
" I had reafon to expect from your affection ? Was 
<c this necefTary to the comfort of my family? 
ce Surely the leaft I expected from you was to 
" leave every thing to me. If my happinefs was 
<c really the thing you fought, I told you by what 
ic means it was to be obtained. What the facri- 
(( flee of it may coft me, God only knows. I 
" believe it will be the firft inftance where abro- 
" ther ever alked it, or a fifter ever paid it." 

If more proof be required on the fubject: of 
Mr. Daubeny's difintereftednefs, take the follow- 
ing letter from Mifs Barnfton to her mother, and 
then judge whofe confent me had obtained, and 
whofe me had not. 

Mifs Barnston to her Mother. 
" My dear Madam, End of the year 1790. 

" I muft entreat vou to let me have fome 
iC private converfation with you. You have heard 



I 73 J 



* r much on one fide, nothing on the other. But 
e< believe me this does not arife from my having 
** nothing to fay; far from it. You have not 
< e heard half what has paffed between Mr. Dau- 
cc beny and me. But it is time yon fhould, and 
" I always propofed to talk with you when I 
ee mould have an opportunity of being with you 
<£ alone. You charge me with having, as you 
*' fuppofed, given the matter up. You certainly, 
4e my dear Madam, was not ignorant that I fuffered 
" much on writing the letter I did to Mr. Meade. 
* 6 And when I carrre afterwards to refleft that 
" what I did was in compliance to Mr. Daubeny's 
<c will, who refolutely flood out againft me, that 
(( he never would fee Mr. Meade, though I told him 
<c you would, and that nothing was wanting but his 
" compliance to make me happy, I own I fuffered 
<c more than can be imagined. I lamented my 
cc yielding fo much to him mo ft bitterly ; I was 
" neither fatisfied in reafon or confcience,* be- 
" caufe he never urged one fingle reafon for pre- 
<c venting my happinefs. After what had paffed, 
" I wifhed of all things to have a little quiet; my 
" nerves were very much mattered; and while we 
" were all together at Weymouth, I felt myfelf 

* Does not this expreflion particularly, as well as every letter 
Mifs Barnfton wrote, prove that it was not to her mother that flic 
.gave way, but to Mr. Daubeny? 



4 



[ 74 ] 

£: unequal to refuming the fubje£t. But my dear 
cc Madam, if you thought I had nothing more to 
cc fay to you, you was indeed miftaken ; for 1 had 
" looked over my conduct, Mr. Meade's, and Mr. 
" Daubeny's. I weighed and reflected on each; 
" and had determined in my mind, whether I 
" ever faw Mr. Meade again or not, to give you 
" my account of things. When you charge me 
" with concealment and referve, believe me I 
ei wiflied at that time you knew all, and now I 
" lament molt heartily I was not more open; 
"✓though my brother, (Mr. Daubeny) was then, 
u as he has been through the whole, the caufe 
" of my not faying what I ought to have faid. 
cc But after all, he and Betfey knew perfe&ly 
* well my fentiments ; for not content with my 
" feeling concern at giving up a fure profpecl: of 
Cf happinefs to Jileafe him, he ftates down every 
" poffible circumftance he could remember, many 
" of which he had down on paper, juft as if he had 
" laid a fnare from the beginning to entrap us, 
" criminates Mr. Meade as much as he could, 
" and then gives it to me, faying, c that I mufl 
<c 6 allow that we had done wrong, and therefore 
<c c ought to fiuTer.' To this my reply is, that 
" i could not agree to what he faid ; if I was 
" on my death- bed I would fay to Mr. Daubeny, 
" c if I give up Mr. Meade, it is contrary to my 
^ c affection, my reafon, and underftanding, it is 



[ 7S ] 

f< 6 merely to pleafe you ; you will not be happy If I 
C( c marry him; and v\hen I confider the unreafon- 
" 6 ablenefs of your averfion to him, I cannot but 
<f c fufFer much difappointment that you will not 
ec c confider me a little, whofe happinefs muft in 
tc * the nature of things, be more injured by my 
<c c giving up to you, than your's can, by your 
<c c giving up to me," 

To thefe letters it is hardly necefTary to add 
more, but one farther extraft mall be quoted from 
a letter of 

Mifs Barn sr on to her Jijler Mrs. Daubeny. 

June 1790. 

" Oh! my deareft Betfey, if you knew the wounds 
* c your letters have given me, you would have 
" reftrained your pen from fuch reflexions. What 
<c is my crime? How have I loft all confcience? 
" What have I done ? If I am indeed void of all 
" feeling, and am guided only by the blind im- 
fC pulfe of paffion* why did I not determine at 
<c once to pleafe myfelf? Why was my heart 
" torn by two affections, or why ftagger between 
* c love and friendihip,* when you tell me that I 
(( muft for ever renounce the latter, if I indulged 

* The reader will naturally obferve, that not a hint is given all 
through thefe letters, either by Mr. Daubeny or Mifs Barnfton, of 
breach of duty to her mother ; it all turns on the duty Mr. Daubeny 
jclaimed from her himfelf. 



[ 76 j 



*f the former? Why does Mr. Daubeny take fucli 
Ci pains to make me miferable, and try with fuch 
" earneftnefs to make you do the fame ? Why 
" has he dealt unfairly by me from the beginning? 
<f Why take conftant uniform pains to mew his 
<6 averfion for Mr. Meade, and then tell you that 
Ci his coming into the family would make a breach 
" in it? When I declared my attachment for 
<c Mr. Meade, c he was a rafcal' When I was 
" earneft to make my attachment appear, c the 
46 c more ftrenuous was Mr, Daubeny to criminate him* 
" I defifted from averting it too abfolutely, know- 
« ing that time and patience would certainly 
<c prove it ; c then I gave it up from conviction of 
" c confcience, and was happy! If Mr. Meade de- 
" clared his attachment, c he was a hypocrite, and 
Cl c meant to urge a thing he found dij agreeable. 9 If 
" he is lilent, ' he does not care for me' It is faid y 
** when / am filent, 4 that I give up from convic- 
<c c tion of confcience, and am happy;' this I 
" deny moft firmly. Had I but forefeen my own 
** bofom friends would have thought thus of me, 
" I would have fhewn them a very different con- 
<c du£t. I did indeed think of doing fo, but then 
<c Mr. Daubeny calls me cruel, and works on my 
"feelings" 



In another letter to Mrs. Daubeny, in July 
1 79 1, me fays, cc my firft giving up the matter I 



I 77 ] 



Cff confidered to be totally on your accounts; and 
" when I afterwards received three meets* of 
a papers from Mr. Daubeny all tending to crimi- 
" nate Mr. Meade in the eyes of my family, I 
cc did think it ungenerous, and was nettled. You 
tf< may guefs how mortified I was, when prornifing 
<c to reftore Mr. Meade's character where he 
** was not to blame, I heard frefli alarms about 
c< his character. Condemned as he was before, 
cc what had I to hope ? I was anxious to a de- 
" gree that they (liould not be fuppofed to come 
€c from Mr. Daubeny. But to go through letters 
cc with him, pointing out every little eircumftance, 
u would agitate me too much. But do not think 
" me obftinately bent on fhutting my eyes; I 
€t mould abhor villainy as much as you in any one." 

If the Biiliop of Lincoln wants living evidence 
of Mr. Daubeny's interference in the family, or of 
his motives, Mrs. Gunning can tell him, as fhe re- 
lated to Mrs. Quicke and to Mr. Meade, the hour 
of her return from that embaffy alluded to in Mifs 
Barn (Ion's letters^ u that Mr. Daubeny with much 
45 heat exclaimed, that Mr. Meade got io,ooo/. by 
€C one Ji/Ier 9 and wanted to get as much, more by ano- 
Ci titer." Mrs. Gunning could tell his Lordfhip, 
that Mrs. Barnflon made no other objections to 
Mr. Meade, but that Mr. Daubeny quarrelled 



* The twelve folio pages mentioned already. 



[ 78 ] 



tvlth him. Nor did Mr. Daubeny then or at 
any time fpecify any objections of Mrs. Barnfton 
or of her family to Mr. Meade. He endeavoured 
to juftify Mr. Meade's being rejected, on the 
ground of circumftances perfonal to himfelf. 

The Bimop can now probably anfwer his own 
queftion himfelf, and fay who or what prevented 
Mifs Bamfton's marrying, after her mother's con- 
fent was once obtained. And he may now in 
turn put a queftion to Mr. Daubeny, and aik him, 
cfi how could you, after Mifs Barnfton told you 
4C that her mother confented to her marrying Mr. 
4C Meade, be fo unfeeling as to prevent it, by 
44 vows that you would feparate your wife and 
4C her children for ever from her mother's houfe, 
44 if Mr. Meade was admitted into it? You furely 
44 juftiried fully what Mifs Barnfton faid, (as you 
" yourfelf have quoted her) that you ufed her mors 
(i cruelly than her father could have done; and after 
" vj hat you had faid, what could fhe do." 

But the Bimop has alleged,. " that there is no 
c * evidence of Mrs. Barnfton's confent being gi- 
44 ven, or fuppofed or underftood to be given.'* 
It is prefumed he will think differently now, 
The Records of the Court, the Judge, Jury, Ver- 
dict, Counfel on both fides, might hare inftru&ed 
him better. His hordfkip fflould have faid, 44 that 
44 there was the evidence of an uncontradicted 
44 oath of a compe tent witnefs to prove the fac\ 



L ?9 ] 



cc and #0 fort of evidence to quejlion it. " But he 
fays, ct If the evidence I quote had been produ- 
" ced at the trial, the verdift would have been 
<c different." A few ifs being granted, any ver- 
dict would be different. Does he mean, that if 
Mrs. Barnfton had fworn to what Mr. Daubeny fays, 
and to what his Lordfhip recites, the verdict 
would have been different? Even in that he is 
miftaken. Had Mrs. Barnfton even gone into 
Court, and depofed on oath " that me never con. 
" fented to her daughter's marriage," what had 
that to do with the flander, for which the Jury 
diftinclly brought in their verdift. And how does 
it appear that Mifs Barnfton would not have 
married, if it had not been for the flander, fince 
her mother admitted* " that fhe was her own 
" miftrefs, and that Mr. Meade would be received 
" as her fon-in-law." 

But fuppofe it poffible that the mother would 
have ventured to fwear as above, is the Bifliop 
fure that a jury would implicitly believe the oath 
of a feeble, forgetful, deluded old perfon, rather 
than the deliberate oath of a thinking religious 
woman, whofe faculties were entire ? Does his 
Lordfhip imagine that a jury would, like himfelf, 
fce content with feeing and hearing only one fide? 

* See Mrs. Barnfton's letter in the year 1796. 



[ 80 1 

Suppofing that the oaths of Mrs. and Mifs 
Barnfton were confidered equal in credit, and that 
it is poffible they could be brought to clafh with 
each other, would not a jury examine, and enquire, 
#c Why did a mother, upwards of feventy, refufe 
<c her confent? What reafon, what moths did fhe 
ec ever affign for acting, apparently, againft reafon, 
"juftice, and nature, and againft that indepen- 
cc dence which fhe herfelf declared her daughter 
<c poffeired?" If no fpecific reafon was affigned, 
would a jury prefume that a mother would have 
acted thus harfhly, and in a manner fo inconfiftent 
with her former language and conduct? Would 
the jury not fee thofe teftimonies which concurred 
from every fide to confirm the oath of an unim- 
peached witnefs, againft the want of recollection, 
or the fubjeciion, of one that was both deluded 
and incenfed ? But his Lordfhip may reft as- 
fured that Mrs. Barnfton would as foon have 
facrificed her life as have ventured to take fuck 
an oath-y although fhe did rafhly fign a paper that 
had been prepared for her, and which it is clear 
that flie would never even have figned> if fhe had 
fairly known what* her daughter fwore, and if 

* The miftakes and mifreprefentations prove it. It ftates that 
Mifs Barnfton fwore what fhe did not fwear. The very firft fen- 
tence is incorrefr. The delufive argument is adopted, of the verdidt 
being for lofs of marriage only. The word approbation is mifap- 
plied ; fo is the expreflion of Mrs. Barnfton's not nuijljing for the 
marriage: whole fentences are the fame as Mrs. Meade reads m 
letters of Mr. Daubeny's, &c. Sec 



C 81 ] 



Jhe had then feen thofe tefiimonies which were afterwards 
brought before her, and which drew from her reluclant 
acknoivledgments* And let it be remembered, that 
the manifefto was signed the ioth or nth of 
June 1 792, a few days after the trial, at a moment 
of exceffive irritation, through falfe reports of her 
daughter's evidence, and a miftaken view of her 
conduct, as conveyed to her by that daughter's 
enemies. Let it be remembered alfo, that the 
proofs and authorities already quoted were not 
at that time brought to her recollection; but that 
when fhe afterwards faw them, her language was 
in confequence evidently changed on that fubject; 
for Mrs. M. Barnfton reluctantly admits, in her 
mother's name, " that the utmof fhe faid was no 
<c more, than that if her daughter chofe to marry 
" Mr. Meade, flie certainly mud receive him as 
" her fon-in-law; that fhe was her own mis- 
t( trefs, and to do as fhe pleafed; but that (he 
" never approved of the bufinefs." Now al- 
though Mifs Barnfton was convinced that her 
mother implied and expreffed indirectly her ap- 
probation, when (he defired her to go and perfuade 
Mr. Daubeny ; yet as the word approbation was 
not in the converfation with her mother, fhe did not 
recite it on oath. She declared, on her oath, that 
fhe had her mother's full and free confent: even 
the above paffage from Mrs. Barnfton's letter is at 

* See Appendix, letter A» 

G 



C 82 ] 



ieaft an acknowledgment of confent not being re- 
fufed; and if the Bifhop and Mrs. M. Barnfton 
think that confent and approbation are fynonimous, 
all that can be faid is, that others think differently. 
But is not a charge of feerjury from a bifliop rather 
a harfli one for a philological difference ? And as 
his Lordfhip muft fee that Mrs. M. Barnfton was 
giving as reftrained an account of the confent as 
could be, (for no doubt Mr. Daubeny wrote the 
copy) he will probably by this time be difpofed 
to fufpeft, that the confent was not quite fo circum- 
fcribed. Let it be alfo obferved, that Mrs. Barnfton 
herfelf does not feem to have ever produced this 
mocking paper. But as Mr. Daubeny either kept, 
or pofTeffed himfelf of it as her executor, he trans- 
ferred it to the Bifhop of Lincoln to be made ufe of 
againft the char abler of her daughter, thirteen years 
after it was written; two years after Jhe had given 
her embraces and blejing, or, according to their own 
account, her chriftian forgivenefs to her daughter; 
and more than a year after the good old lady had 
piaffed to the gravel 

To the reproaches on Mrs. Meade in the fame 
letter, for calling herfelf " an outcaft from her 
" family," flie has only to reply, that when Mr. 
Sikes wrote in Mrs. Barnfton's name to Mr. 
Goddard, at whofe houfe Mifs Barnfton then was, 
" that if flie went into court as a witnefs, the 
€ < mother and daughter could never fee each other 



1 



[ 83 ] 



<c again," {he underftood, and fo did her friends, 
that (he was caft off from her mother's houfe, 
This perhaps was another philological miftake. 
When the Bimop declares it to be his opinion that 
it is " improbable" Mrs. Barnfton gave her con- 
fen t; Mr. Meade ventures to fay, that even pro- 
bability would be againft his Lordfhip's opinion. 
That Mifs Barnfton was paft thirty, and her mo- 
ther between feventy and eighty, is well known,, 
So it is, that of all her daughters, none was more 
efteemed and loved by her than Mifs Barnfton. 
Her mother invariably declared, that me was to 
judge for and to pleafe herfelf, as being her own 
miftrefs; and in point of fortune, her father made 
her abfolutely independent. Is it then fo pro- 
bable that a mother under thefe circumftances 
would refufe her confent to her daughter marry- 
ing a man in every view equal to her, even fingu- 
larly fuitable as a match for her; and that flie 
mould do this without ever furmijing one objeclion. 

The alfertion of Mr. Daubeny, " that to his 
" knowledge Mrs. Barnfton had ever a great 
" diflike to Mr. Meade," is a bold one, but Is 
neceffary to juftify his conduft. This, however, 
can be eafily difproved; Mr. Meade having lived 
for fixteen years in uninterrupted friendfhip with 
the Barnfton family. It was his acquaintance 
introduced Mr. Daubeny into it; who married 



[ 84 ] 



out of Mr. Meade's houfe.* And not only 
Mifs Barnflon knew the attachment of her family 
to him, but many others alfo, who witneffed 
the familiarity in which he lived with them, 
both before and fince Mr. Barnfton's death; for 
whom a mourning ring was given to him as a 
friend. Previous to his going abroad he remained 
fome time at Mrs. Barnfton's houfe, where he 
not only received every mark of the mo ft cordial 
regard from her, but (he even infifted, at parting, 
that her houfe mould always be his home when- 
ever he came to Bath. Mrs. M. Barnfton was 
no lefs kind and affectionate, always calling him 
€s Brother Meade " and me wrote to him after he 
left the houfe with the mod friendly intereft. For 
the truth of this he appeals to the family which 
were hi the houfe, and to many who vifited in it, 
while he was there. Even the fervants themfelves 
could all teftify it. Can it be fuppofed, then, that 
lie was difagreeable to Mrs. Barnfton? After- 
wards, when Mr. Meade was abroad, Mrs. Gun- 
ning told Mrs. Barnfton, that it was reported by 
every one that he was to marry Mifs Barnfton. 
Mrs, Coham alfo did the fame. If ftie had then 

* It Is pretended that Mr. Daubeny was a boarder with Mr. 
Meade, probably left Mr. Daubeny fhould be fuppofed to be fub- 
Jed even to a debt of hofpitality. The fadfc is not fo; he was 
purely a vifitor with Mr. Meade; for nearly a year and a half, 
until he married. 



[ 85 ] 



that averfion which is falfely fuggefted, furely fhe 
would not have refted fo quiet as not to enquire 
or write a line on the fubjeft ; which it is certain 
Ihe never did, although Mr. Meade was then 
travelling with her daughter, and was probably 
to continue To for a year at leaft, as fhe well knew. 
And when Mrs. Gunning was afterwards em- 
ployed to make propofals to Mrs. Barnfton in 
Mr. Meade's name, me was given to underftand 
that the only obje&ion was on account of a breach 
between Mr. Daubeny and him. Too well in- 
deed has he been fince convinced that every means 
were pra&ifed to imprefs Mrs. Barnfton with ha- 
tred and abhorrence of him; but he alfo well 
knows to whofe machinations he is indebted for it. 

Mr. Meade has now done with this fubjeft as 
far as regards the confent. His only difficulty has 
been to felecl: proofs from abundance. His Lord- 
mip confiders that a paper figned by a very old 
and irritated lady, under the influence or direction 
of others, muftbe her own compofition; and that 
it probably muft be true: but did he not fee, 
that Mrs. Barnfton had been inftigated before the 
trial to put her name to angry aflertions which 
fhe could not intend? Is it lefs to be wondered 
at, that after the trial, when every means were 
pra&ifed to irritate and impofe on her, fhe did 
the fame? 



[ 86 ] 



In one letter Mifs Barnfton is threatened with 
her pofitive affurance, " that fhe mould go into 
court to oppofe what her daughter mould fwear." 
Did Ihe perform, or even attempt it? On the con- 
trary, was flie not terrified and miferable when 
Mr. Meade's fubpoena was ferved on her? In 
another letter me afferted with equal confidence, 
<c that if Mr. Meade began law, Mr. Daubeny 
would go on." Was there the fmalleft ground 
to warrant this aflertion? And when Mr. Meade, 
regardlefs of thefe impotent threats, fubpoenaed 
all the family, and juftice had taken place, then 
Mrs. Barnfton is again quoted, as afferting that 
flie would or could have oppofed her daughter's 
evidence. But will thinking people liften to 
fuch unwarrantable means of fapping the foun- 
dations of law and juftice? In evidence they 
prove nothing; in party spirit they prove too much; 
and for the fober language of a parent towards 
her child, they are too fhocking and unnatural ; 
and plainly difcover that fhe faid and did, as 
others dire&ed her. But the Bifliop is fo pleafed 
with this long manifefto, w T hich was no more 
compofed by Mrs. Barnfton than by his Lordihip, 
that he quotes the whole of it, irrelevant as it is 
in almoft every point. The folemn declaration 
in it, u that Mrs. Barnfton did not wijh her daugh- 
ter to marry Mr. Meade," may or may not be 



[ 87 ] 



true; but it is nothing to the purpofe, for no one 
ever fpoke of her wiflies. Nor is the aflertion 
much more to the purpofe, " that Mrs. Barnfton 
had always objections to Mr. Meade," becaufe 
if (he had, ftie kept them to herfelf; me never 
expreffed them to her daughter, or to anyone elfe, 
that fhe heard of. The two long letters to Mr. 
Sawbridge and Mr. Goddard, accompanying this 
manifefto, and bearing the fame date, and which 
are recited in full by the Bifliop, equally difcover 
Mrs. Barnfton's exceffive irritation, her ignorance 
of the whole truth, and her delufion; and the 
family well knew it. For her uncle Mr. Saw- 
bridge's opinion of Mrs. Meade, and for the 
opinion of every branch of his refpe&able family, 
Mr. Meade refers his Lordfliip to themfelves. 
And he cannot but obferve, that if his Lordfliip 
had applied to them, it would have been more in 
point for the attainment of information, than the 
long letter he has publiflied from a Mr. Watfon 3 
a gentleman who has never feen Mr. or Mrs e 
Meade, or known of them but through the me- 
dium of Mr. Daubeny and his friends. And 
as for the opinion of the late Mr. Goddard, to 
whom the other letter is addrelfed, the beft 
account of it is found in his letter to Mrs. 
Meade's uncle, about the time of his receiving 
Mrs. Barnfton's letter. 



£ 88 ] 



John Godbard, efq; to Henrt Saivbridge, efq. 

Woodford-Hall, June 1792. 

" The fincereft tribute of veneration I could 
<c pay to the memory of Mr. Barnfton, I deem 
cc the protection I have given to his truly amiable 
u daughter, Mifs C. Barnfton, under her late in- 
€c numerable fufferings ; a duty the more incum- 
*' bent on me, in proportion as me has been 
?* relinquiflied by her own family; the good part 
u of which will, I truft, in time, however preju- 
ec diced at prefent, be convinced of their mifguided 
ec conduct towards her, and applaud me for having 
€C flood forth the friend of the innocent. From 
« c the opinion I entertain of your affection for fo 
€c truly worthy a niece, I need not apologife for 
ie addreffing you on the part I now pride myfelf 
* c to act for her as a parent. Convinced of the 
* c rectitude of Mr. Meade's heart, and his ftrict 
" honour, the higheft teftimony I can give of my 
u fenfe of them is, having advifed her to make 
€c no farther delay in doing, what was expected 
" by every one on her coming out of Court, and 
<f marrying him. That nothing may be wanting 
fc to complete in the moft honourable way our 
<c duty as a father and mother towards her, Mrs. 
" Goddard and I will affift ; that every thing may 
* c be expedited before we leave home, as we are 
u obliged in a few days to fet off for the Weft of 



t 89 3 



V England, determined not to leave her in a forlorn 
ft fituation, though our houfe mould be for ever 
" a home to her. I have difcharged my duty to 
ff her by my previous attention in providing every 
" fecurity refpe&ing fortune, and I may fay, more 
iC to her emolument than I would or indeed have 
<c done for my own daughters; and in juftice to 
Ci Mr. Meade I muft add, not only with his con- 
* c currence, but his wifhes.* John Goddard." 

The Bifliop proceeds to fay, " that Mifs Barn- 
" fton having refufed to marry Mr. Meade in 
<c Auguft 1790, and in January 1791, the conver- 
6e fation that took place in June 1791, could 
" not have prevented the marriage." No! not 
at thofe times ! But Mr. Daubeny had feen that 
after Mifs Barnfton had been two or three times 
worked upon to give up her intentions, circum- 
ftances had arifen which induced a determination 
to overcome her difficulties ; for as fhe told her 
mother, " fhe was neither fatisfied in reafon or 
" confciencef that fhe had yielded, Mr. Daubeny 

* Mr. Meade has the original draft In Mr. Goddard's writing. 
And when Mr. Goddard mentioned that Mifs Barnfton was " re- 
" linquimed by her family/ ' he had the beft reafon to know it, for 
it was to him that Mr. Sikes conveyed Mrs. Barnfton's mcffage, 

that if her daughter mould go into Court as a witnefs, fhe and 
, f< her mother could never fee each other again." 

t See p. 73. 



C 90 ] 



" not having produced one folid objection to Mr, 
<c Meade." ButMr.Daubeny had prepared in good 
time, and laid before her, the particulars in detail, 
of fuch deep criminality and wickednefs, refpect- 
ing a will, as could not but produce the effect 
he intended, and decided her fucceeding conduct. 

His Lordfhip adds, u that a letter of Mrs, 
* c Meade's to her fitter Mrs. Daubeny proves 
cc that her fufpicions about the will were fubfe- 
<c quent to the refufal." But which refufal? as 
that is the term they ufe. The Bifhop blindly 
takes up a notion that Mifs Barnfton having once, 
contrary to her judgment, to her affections, and 
(as Hie told her mother) " contrary to her confci- 
" ence," given up her intentions of marrying, 
never altered them. Mr. Daubeny could have 
informed him better. His efforts, thofe of Mifs 
Barnfton herfelf, and of her relations, could tell 
his Lordfhip a different ftory. " But how could 
" fhe," he afks, " fpeak in her letter to Mrs. 
<c Daubeny, of Mr. Meade as a man whom c fhe 
" * thought every thing fhe could wifh in a hus- 
" ( band," and yet fwear that the fufpicions ex- 
" cited by Mr. Daubeny prevented her marrying 
" him?" His Lordfhip will find the anfwer in 
all her letters written at the time. Her own 
honour, as well as Mr. Meade's, required that he 
fhould appear in the world an honeft man, not a 
villain. Her friends all infilled on this. Mr. 



[ 91 ] 



Daubeny had robbed him of his good name, and 
fhe could not,* and (as fhe told Mrs. Gunning) 
would not, marry a man under fuch circumflances. 
No friend or relation of hers would countenance 
her marrying. He who afterwards a£led as a 
father to her, Mr. Goddard, told her it was ne- 
ceffary to her honour that Mr. Meade mould clear 
himfelf before fhe married him. She herfelf 
conflantly required that he fhould clear himfelf, 
or be acknowledged as blamelefs by thofe who 
gave fan&ion and importance to the calumny. 
To Mrs. Gunning fhe wrote, defiring " that Mr. 

Meade would not think of her, but defend hirh- 
c< felf and to Mrs.Ravenhill, her aunt, fhe wrote 
in effecl: the fame; and to her fifter Mrs. M. 
Barnfton, and to her mother, her language was 
uniform and confiftent in this. 

The letter quoted by the Bifhop was to her 
lifter, Mr. Daubeny's wife, as has been already 
faid, in anfwer to one, which unkindly wounded 
her by reflexions on Mr. Meade's character, 
which naturally excited her refentment.f 

* See p. 39. 

f The Bifhop, who knows nothing of wh^t pafled at the trial, 
yet affects to fpeak of it with confidence, and would have it believed 
that Mrs. Meade fwore that the effect of the flander on her own 
mind alone was the caufe why fhe did not marry. But it is pre- 
fumed that every one who reads this pamphlet, will be able to cor- 
rect his Lordfhip, and inform him how the flander prevented her 
marrying. 



[ 92 ] 

The Bifliop takes his report of " the verdicY' 
from Mr. Dabeny's pamphlet, which fuppreffes 
the chief part of it; and his Lordfhip accordingly 
flates it to be for £C lofs of marriage. " But if he 
had looked to better authority he would have 
feen that the verdift was exprefsly and difiinQly 
for flander, and\ for lofs of marriage : or, as the 
Bifliop has feen it exprefled in the manifefto he 
has been at the pains of copying, <c for the delay o^ 
" the marriage. " And as his Lordfhip reafons all 
through as if it was/br lofs of marriage only, he mull 
excufe Mr. Meade for putting to him the queftion^ 
cc whether his LordjJiip, did not know that it was for 
« flander alfo r% 

The account of the Rev. Mr. H. Sawbridge's 
commiffion in January 1792, is a mifreprefenta. 
tion; and as his Lordfhip defires original docu- 
ments, he is referred to Mr. Sawbridge himfelf, 
who would neither have received or conveyed fo 
undutiful a meflage to his aunt, as is recited by 
the Bifliop. 

When the Bifliop again aflerts that Mrs. Barn- 
fton's two letters to Mr. Goddard and her brother, 

f That Mr. Meade may not be again accufed of not referring 
to original documents, vide Records of the Court of King's-Bench. 

% The Bifliop in defending a theologian forgets a verdift; and 
sf his Lordfhip confined himfelf to his defence of a favourite, none 
would object. But if he lifts a load from the moulders of the guilty 
to place it on thofe of the innocent, he mould be reminded that 
there is neither Chriftian charity nor moral juftice m fuch an action* 



t 93 ] 



already fpoken of, were written before Mr. Dau- 
benfs return from London, how does he know it? 
Who told him fo? Or how does he know that 
they, or inftruclions for them, were not fent down 
for her to copy ? Or does he mean roundly 
to aver, that none of thofe letters were compofed 
by others, which pretend to be Mrs. Barnfton's 
and Mrs. M. Barnfton's? This queftion is put 
once for all. 

His Lordlhip fays,* " that becaufe in Auguft 
«* 1791, Mrs. Barnfton had objections, therefore 
<{ Mifs Barnfton did not receive her mother's 
*' confent." Does he mean by this, that previous 
to Mr. Daubeny's pra£tifing on her mother, Mrs. 
Meade had not received her confent in June 1 790? 
How is that proved? The Bifhop's argument 
may prove that Mrs. Barnfton mightf have with- 
drawn her confent in 1791, but it proves nothing 
elfe. 

The three or four letters which the Bifhop 
quotes,^ as proving " that the marriage was given 
<c up to Mrs. Meade 9 s mother,' 1 are really nothing 

* See Appendix, letter F. 

t Mr. Meade fully admits that Mrs. Barnfton virtually withdrew 
her confent — that me was gradually worked up from kindnefs to 
diflike, and even to averfion ; fo that as Mifs Barnfton wrote to 
Mrs. Gunning," they have broke up Mr. Meade's reputation, fo that 
<f J cannot flatter myfelf with any chance of a turn." 

i See Appendix. 



[ 9* ] 



to thepurpofe for his argument; but when properly 
tmderftood are proofs for Mrs. Meade. The rea- 
der has already feen that Mr. Daubeny's influence 
had poifoned Mrs. Barnfton's mind, and Mifs 
Barnfton yielded nominally to her mother; that is, 
to Mr. Daubenys influence on her mother •, and to no 
other caufe whatever. And when fhe brought the 
affair on again, {he was again and again thwarted 
by the fame influence acting in proportion to the 
occafion. Yet it was ftill Jaid that fhe nominally 
gave way to her mother. But the Bifhop would 
lind it very difficult to difcover any caufe why 
Mifs Barnfton did actually give up, but to Mr„ 
Daubeny's influence in the firfl inftance' y and when 
fhe was difpofed to refill that influence, after- 
wards to the effect of the flander. But when the 
Bifhop fays " that the marriage was given uft-" 
how does he mean? Does he mean irrevocably 
given njif If he do, let the various efforts that 
were made for and againft be the anfwer to him: 
let the object of Mr. Sawbridge's journey to Bath 
in Jan. 1792, prove the contrary. For the mani- 
fefto fays, (how truly is another queftion) " that 
" he came to Bath to tell Mrs. Barnfton that her 
" daughter was determined to marry at all events. 
Does his going prove that he confidered'the mat- 
ter as given ufi ? Mrs. Barnfton fays, " fhe did not 
" know till then that the affair was going on;" 
thus admitting that fhe then perceived " that it 



C & ] 



^ was not given u/i" in her daughter's mind. In 
fa£t it was affeded and wilful blindnefs that 
made them fuppofe Mifs Barnfton's mind at 
eafe. Her letters to her mother in October 1 790, 
and in September 1 79 1, were proofs enough that 
her affe&ions were not changed. " Attached to 
" Mr. Meade on the bed principles, with the de- 
c c liberate judgment of a woman of thirty, can 
"I facrifice my happinefs to Mr. Daubeny's 
" anger ? " and " mould his character be decided 
" clear as noon-day, I confefs my regards mull 
<f remain unchangeable." But if Mr. Daubeny 
really believed that Mifs Barnflon had given up 
all thoughts of Mr. Meade, why did he relate the 
flanderto her at all? efpeciaJly, as the Bifhop fays 
" Mr, Daubeny did not believe it himfelf;"* 
Whv endeavour to fecure her from marrying Mr. 
Meade, even after her mother's death? as the 
Bifhop recites. 

The Bifhop goes on to reafon from an extract 
of a letter from Mr. Meade to Mr. John Daubeny, 
" that becaufe Mrs. Barnflon did not at laft confent, 
" therefore that (he had never done it." This is 
a Q. E. D. which his Lordfhip would not admit 
at Cambridge. And here let it be remarked 

* How do*es the Bifhop know this f It' Mr. Daubeny told him 
fo, it is an efpecial mark of his confidence and intimacy with the 
Bifhop ; for Mr. Meade never heard that he had candour enough 
to avow it to any friend before* 



[ 96 ] 



once for all, that his Lordfhip's mode of reafofi^ 

in 2", that an affair of the heart between two inde- 
ed 7 

pendent perfons, once dropped, through manifeft 
violence and imposition, mould never be revived, is 
a mode of reafoning that was never adopted be- 
fore. But if his prejudices are rigid againft Mrs. 
Meade, his partiality on the other fide is manifeft. 
He relates a ftory of Mr. Daubeny preffing 
Mifs Barnfton, before her aunt, to decide againft 
marrying Mr. Meade; and his Lordfliip had feeri 
that the object of that interference was to fecure 
her by a promife not to marry Mr. Meade after 
her mother's death j for (as the Bifliip recites in 
another place) when Mr. Daubeny addreffed Mifs 
Barnfton at Mr. Sikes's for the fame purpofe, me 
is faid to have hinted or intimated that ftie mould 
marry Mr. Meade after her mother's death. Yet 
his Lordihip is fo blind as not to perceive, in this 
conduct of Mr. Daubeny, an open violation of 
juftice, and an outrage againft the liberty of an 
independent woman. But it is ftill more extra- 
ordinary that his Lordftiip does not fee that this 
very ftory which he relates, proves two or three 
points, which his labours in forty-one pages were 
employed to controvert ; as " that Mr. Daubeny 
" did interfere." " That Mr. Daubeny knew that 
<c Mifs Barnfton had not altogether given the matter 
" up" And, cc that he had other views, than fuch 
" as concerned Mrs. Bamjlon" for he was then 



C 9t ] 



pleading in the event of her death. But after all, 
what could be expected from a felf-madejudge,who 
affociated with one party alone, and received im- 
preffions,glo{res 5 and comments from one fide 5 and 
not only never faw the other, but never intimated 
that he meant to judge the caufe, nor afked for a 
fingle explanation, norever hinted at the arguments 
or pretended facls^until the condemned party* faw 
them in his fentence of condemnation? 

His Lordfhip is taught to fpeak of" Mrs. Meade's 
" family" as confifting only of Mr. Daubeny, and 
thofe that are influenced by him. But Mrs. Meade 
has the happinefs of knowing in her family nume- 
rous branches, of whom his Lordfhip is ignorant, 
and of whofe character it was intended to keep him 
in ignorance; fome of them indeed are mentioned 
in his papers as having been interefted for Mifs 
Barnilon, on coming out of Court; and it is very 
true. Relations, old connexions, family friends, 
united, with hearts and hands, to fupport and 
comfort her ; except thofe who were influenced 
by Mr. Daubeny. All expreffed thofe regards 
which they have continued ever fince. Among 

* This example affords a ferioiis leflbn how dangerous it is to 
truft any man with papers. For under the guife of impartiality, he 
may, if difpofed to become a partizan, adopt and circulate any 
charges. For there can be no more fecurity than rellraint, if any 
one is at liberty to receive from one party unfounded anecdotes, and 
without enquiry into their truth, publifh them, or fuffer them to be 
publifhed, to the world as fads, and refufe to retracl: or acknowledge, 
the impofition, when their falfhood is difcovered. 

H 



[ 98 ] 



them her neareft and dear relations, the Sawbridge 
family, were not the laft; and in particular her 
coufm the Rev. H. Sawbridge, who is charged with 
tc having taken her by the hand on coming out of court" 
Of the letters quoted by the Bifhop as Mrs, 
Barnfton's, and Mrs. M. Barnfton's, it need only 
be faid, as they are very long, that they are mani- 
feftly of Mr. Daubeny's compofing, and that his 
Lordfhip has as ufual kept back the anfwers. 

The application by Mr. W. Sawbridge to Mr. 
Sikes was, like his brother's, purely benevolent. 
But the refult proved the effeft which the flander 
had on the family. 

The letter* of Mrs. Meade produced by the 
Bifiiop only proves, cc that me did not know that 
" Mr. Daubeny meant to deny or conceal what he 
cc had told her at his houfe in the Crefcent." Nor 
would any remark on it be neceffary, but that the 
Bilhop ventures from it to affert that Mr. Daubeny 
could not know what Mifs Barnfton intended to 
fwear, and therefore was unprepared. But his 
Lordfhip and Mr. Daubeny mould remember that 
the declaration contained the chief part of what 
flie fwore, and that Mr. Daubeny faw it fome 
time before the trial. And did he not give a 
fhrewd guefs at what me muft fwear, when her 
mother wrote, commanding and terrifying her 
from obeying the fubpcena, and threatening her 

* All letters here quoted are given in the Appendix. 



E 99 1 



that flie would go into Court to contradi& her 
oath ? How could Mrs. Barnfton venture to affert 
this, if flie did not know what her daughter muft 
fwear? And if flie did know it, why did fhe not 
appear in Court, as fhe had been ferved with a 
fubpoena; and, as the Bifliop afferts, that her 
faculties were fo perfeft* for many years after. 
The anfwer is a very plain one; in Court fhe 
would have been examined upon oath, and flie 
muft have anfwered for herjelfl 

Mrs. Barnfton's letter of January 1 797, to Arch- 
deacon Coham, written by fome one for her, and in 
Mr. Daubeny* s own words, fhe being then in her 
eightieth year, is produced by the Bifliop; altho' 
it quotes no fact, but that Mr. Daubeny fays fo and 
fo. But his Lordfliip, as ufual, keeps back the 
reply, which fliall however be quoted in the Ap- 
pendix ; and the reader will probably fee fome 
importance in it, although it is prefumed the 
Bifliop faw none, by his fupprefling it. 

As to the letter from Mifs Barnfton to Mr. 
Daubeny, from Mr. Hooker's, it only goes to fliew 
that (he did not think, and that fhe imagined 
Mr. Meade did not think, that Mr. Daubeny did 
really believe the flander which he had propagated ;\ 
but it does not go to prove that he did not utter it. 

* His Lordfhip takes this for granted, as Mr. Daubeny's party 
affure him of it. He himfelf never law her. 

t The Bifliop fays, " Mr. Daubeny did not believe the flander." 
Mr. Meade thinks the fame. What then ? Is this any palliation ? 

H 2 



C loo ] 



Mr. Meade was juft then returned to England 
to enquire into the calumny, about which his 
friends had been anxioufly writing to him ; and 
hearing that Mifs Barnfion was near London, 
where he was, he thought it right to endeavour to 
fee her, that he might, if poffible, learn diftinclly 
what he had to explain, or to defend himfelf 
againft; for he had then feen none of his confi- 
dential friends. 

But the whole hiftory conne&ed with the above 
letter of Mifs Barnfton to Mr. Daubeny is very 
lingular, and would alone prove, not only the 
deep and ferious effect of the flander, but the 
unexampled degree of terror in which Mr. Dau- 
beny held herfelf, and the power which flie knew 
he had over her mother's family. And as Mr. 
Daubeny had always affected to talk to her with 
liberality and impartiality, and of an amicable 
enquiry into Mr. Meade's bufmefs, fhe thought it 
right to endeavour to conciliate and win him by 
every exprefiion of kindnefs. 

But as the Bifliop argues that Mr. Daubeny did 
not believe the flander, why did he not deny it before 
he went into Court f Why not once fay fo, to 
thofe clergymen who were negociating with him 
during ten months? Why imprefs Mr. Sikes and 
all his family with a belief of criminality? Why_, 
did Mr. Sikes wonder that Mr. Meade did not 
come fooner to England to char his character ? and 



[ 101 ] 



Mr. T. Sikes afk Dr. Blayney, tc whether he could 
< c really think there was nothing wrong about the 
« will?" Why did Mr. R.Ravenhill, Mrs. Meade's 
coufin, who was always a zealous advocate for 
the freedom of her choice, advife her to great 
caution about the wiJIs and why did Mr. Hooker 
do the fame, who heard the account of it from 
Mr. Daubeny himfelf? Why did her aunt Raven- 
hill tell her, " that Mr. Meade was either a very 
" bad, or a very injured man?" In ftiort, what 
inflamed Mrs. Barnfton to fuch a degree of horror 
againft Mr. Meade? For furely the honourable 
addreiTes of a gentleman to her daughter were 
neither an injury nor an infult, much Jefs would it 
warrant fuch an averfion as hers. And although 
Mr. Daubeny thinks proper to deny what Mifs 
Barnfton depofed,yet he neitherdenies inlinuations 
of the dander, nor conceals his intentions of impu- 
ting criminality ftill to Mr. Meade. And how he 
wifhed her mind to be affe&ed, is pretty evident 
by his remarking to her, when the affair was 
fomewhat clearing, c: that the very fusfiicion of 
" fuch things ruined a man's character." And 
even when he faw that the affair was likely to go 
into a court of law, he averred that Mr. Meade 
could not even then clear himfelf, becaufe he 
ftiould deny that he made any charges, and there" 
fore that it could not be brought to trial. 



I 102 ] 

The letter from Mrs. Daubeny to Mifs Barn- 
flon only declares, as a wife would naturally 
do, that her hufband was a blamelefs man ; for 
Mr. Daubeny juft then began to be alarmed by 
Mr. Meade's return to England, and by Dr. Blay- 
ney's announcing his determination to inveftigate 
the flander about the will. 

Of the only interview which Mrs. Meade could 
obtain with her mother in thirteen years, and 
which took place in Sept. 1803, the Bifhop of 
Lincoln has indeed givenanextraordinaryaccount, 
" Mrs. Meade went there (he fays) by her own 
<e appointment." And, " it was the intention of 
" Mr. Daubeny and the family to confine the inter- 
" view to the purpofe for which it was requeued." 

From this eafy reprefentation of his Lord- 
fliip, one would fuppofe that the interview took 
place by confent, and with a kindly mind. 
But the contrary was notorious to his Lordfliip; 
every requeft and effort of Mrs. Meade to fee her 
mother having been rejected for more than twelve 
years. But hearing that Mr. Daubeny was abfent 
from Bath; earneftly advifed by her friends to go 
refolutely to her mother's houfe, and to claim the 
right of a child to fee her parent, as the only ftep 
flie had left untried ; tempted alfo by Mr. Stevens's 
truly-charitable fentiments* on the fubje£t, which 
had been conveyed to her mother, Ihe refolved to 

* See the hiftory of the interview in the Appendix./?*-* 



[ 103 ] 



make one perfonal effort for the purpofe; and 
being unknown by her mother's fervants, and 
fuffered to go up flairs, and having tapped at the 
door, Mrs. M. Barnfion opened it, and refifted her 
entrance with all her power. But Mrs. Meade's 
heart being fet upon it, me refolved to carry her 
point; nor was fhe moved from it until Mrs. M. 
Barnfion c pleaded her mother's illn-efs/ faying, 
c that fhe had taken medicine, and that an inter- 
% view would hurt her then extremely;' and fhe 
promifed, that ' if Mrs. M. would give it up at 

* that time, fhe mould fee her in a day or two, 

* and that {he would write to her to fix the time.* 
" Shall I fee her alone r faid Mrs. Meade. 1 No!' 
replied her fifler, ( my mother will not fee you 
4 without Mr. Daubeny.' <c Then it will be of 
" no ufe," faid Mrs. Meade, ce and I am refolved 
" to fee my mother now; it can never hurt her to 
" fee her daughter at her feet, imploring her bles- 
" fmg." Mrs. M. Barnfion then promifed, c that 
c if fhe would give it up then, fhe mould fee her 

* alone : at leafl,' faid fhe, * I will do all I can 
6 for it.' Mrs. Meade foon after returned to the 
country ; and the fame evening a meffenger was 
difpatched to Mr. Daubeny, who in confequence 
arrived in Bath; and the next morning a very 
unkind note* was fent by Mrs. M. Barnfion, ap- 
pointing the following day for the interview, 

* See it in the Appendix, 4^ a. 3 / 



f 104 ] 



All this the Bifliop of Lincoln mildly defcribes 
by cc JJie faw her mother, by her own particular requeft, 
" the firfl: time fince the trial." Bat it is the more 
unaccountable that his Lordfhip mould give this 
complexion to the fact, as he mil ft have feen that 
even a few days before this interview, Mrs. Meade 
was not only denied all hope of ever feeing her 
mother, but was even commanded not to write 
to her; her fifter, Mrs. M. Barnfton, directing her 
to addrefs in future to Mr. Daubeny what fhe 
might have to fay to her mother! 

The Bifliop proceeding adds, <f that it was the 
u intention of Mr. Daubeny and the family to con- 
* ( fine the interview to the purpofe for which it 
<c was requefted." This at leaf! mews who di- 
rected the bufinefs ! " Confine the interview!" 
A clergyman thus countenanced in confining an in- 
terview between a mother and a daughter, whofe 
meeting was exprefsly for peace, for love, and for 
reconciliation! What right had he to confine it ? or 
to interfere? As a Party, did juftice warrant him? 
AsaMinifter and a Chriftian, did charity counte- 
nance him? As a Brother-in-law, did Nature au- 
thprife him ? Confine it to the purpofe for which it 
was requefted! The Bilhop may anfwer for other 
people's purpofe : but Mrs. Meade's uniform 
conduct and letters, even the very laft* (he wrote 
to her mother a week before the interview, ex- 
* See the correfpondence in the Appendix. 



t 105 ] 



plained her purpofe too clearly to need a commen- 
tator. She requefted a return of peace and love ; 
flie implored her mother's bleffing for herfelf and 
her children ; and her influence in promoting 
general reconcilement, defiring mutual oblivion* 
with every expreffion of duty to her mother, and 
good-will to all her relations. Did fhe requeft 
to fee Mr. Daubeny in her mother's apartment? 
or to be furprifed by a party of ftrangers or ene- 
mies? or on rifing in agonies from her mother's 
feet, to be encountered with charges and argu- 
ments from a book, which Mr. Daubeny held in 
his hand, ready noted and marked for the attack? 
Did flie carry her youngefl daughter there, only 
to be refufed the comfort of prefenting the little 
child, once in her life, to her grandmother? 

But letfacls fpeak for themfelves, and not the 
Bimop of Lincoln ! The morning after the in- 
terview, a letter was fent by exprefs to Mrs. 
Meade, through Mr. Daubeny, forbidding her and 
her children in future from her mother's houfe^ 
if they would avoid the pain of being refufed ad- 
mittance. In a few months after, Mrs. Meade 
heard that her mother had paid the debt of nature, 
and that the chief part of her's and her children's 
portion of her mother's fortune was given to Mr.. 
Daubeny, by a will, made a few months before 
the above interview; Mrs. Barnfton being then 
in the 85th year of her age! 



[ 106 ] 



The reader will probably be able, without the 
Bifhop of Lincoln's help, to judge of the inten- 
tion in confining the interview between a mother 
and her daughter ! ! ! 

The infidious ftatement, that Mrs Meade went 
for forgivenefs, as implying an acknowledgment of 
her being in the wrong, me trufts it is not inde- 
corous to fay, is unworthy of notice > it is a paltry 
perveriion ; and there will be, and can be, but one 
opinion on the fubjett. But when his Lordfhip 
fays, " the interview was reqiiejled for forgivenefs"* 
Mr. Meade again ventures to fay, that his Lord- 
Ihip owes it to his own rank and ftation to make 
apologies for this mifreprefentation, and for this 
attack on the character of Mrs. Meade. There 
is not the fmallefl: foundation in fa£t for the afTer- 
tion! Why did not the Bifliop produce any one 
letter of Mrs, Meade's to fupport him, even the 
very laft which me fent to her mother previous to 
the interview ? For being never permitted to 
fee her mother, her fentiments could be exprelfed 

* The Bifliop is pleafed to charge on Mr. Meade, what in ficT: 
his Lordfhip alone praclifes; viz. fuppremng principal features, and 
bringing forward thofe that are fubordinate. Indeed his Lordfhip does 
more, for he not only fuppreffes principal features, but he fupplies 
others out of his own imagination, as it fhould feem; for certainly 
they are not taken from Mrs. Meade. Her application to her mo- 
ther Hated her object to be, " reconciliation, mutual oblivion, old 
" charities." But his Lordfhip fuppreffing thefe, fubftitutes the 
word " forgivenefs." 



[ 107 ] 



only in her letters. What is the reafon that 
every document is fuppreffed that difcovers the 
truth? Such a fentiment as confeffing wrong to 
Mr. Daubeny, or injury to any one, never in thir- 
teen years efcaped her pen or her lips. And 
Mr. Meade ventures to fay, that no one whatever 
is out of the reach of danger; that there is no 
fecurity either in law, innocence, or truth; if un- 
founded affertions or malignant perverfions be 
admitted in judgment. 

Thofe who feel an intereft in the fubject of 
this pamphlet, will not be difpleafed to learn, 
that in every application to her mother, Mrs. 
Meade forgot both injuries and infults, and only 
remembered, that the perfon (he was addreffing 
was her mother, and that that mother was de- 
ceived. Her letters therefore uniformly expreffed 
humility, arTe&ion, and duty. Mrs. Meade, as 
has been already faid, married without applying 
at the time to her mother. Her motives for 
adopting the advice of her other relations and 
friends, and for availing herfelf of the indepen- 
dence, which me was acknowledged to poffefs, 
have been already explained. But as her mother 
was by falfe reprefentations, influenced to revoke, 
without affigning any reafon, the confent {he had 
once given, declaring (he would never again fee 
her; and Mrs. Meade, fupported by eminent di- 
vines, as well as others, thought proper to aft for 



t 108 ] 



herfelf, without offering the infult of again afking 
her mother's confent at that moment of irritation; 
fhe never ceafed during thirteen years to implore, 
with every expreffion of duty, her mother's for- 
givenefs for that unintended appearance of difre- 
specl to her. 

The artful infinuation that thefe expreffions of 
filial love and piety were acknowledgments of 
her guilt, is a perverfion of a chriftian virtue into 
criminality, and none knew it better than thofe 
perfons who mifapplied them. The bait of con- 
feffing criminality, in order to exculpate Mr. 
Daubeny, was often held out to her with cunning 
allurements; but flie as uniformly rejected it 
with indignation and horror. When infulted 
with a fimilar (hocking propofal in the year 1797, 
flie gave a final anfwer from which fhe never 
varied. 

Mrs, Meade to her Mother. 

Dec. 28, 1797. 
cc To your conditions of reconcilement I return 
" with a forrowful heart this anfwer. Yon require 
" that I proclaim my felf a perjured wretch; that 
" I confefs that all I have declared for five years 
6C paft, even at the altar, is falfe ; and that all 
c< thofe that bore teitimony to my truth, are liars! 
" Oh, Nature ! Oh, Charity ! This is the fum of 



[ 109 1 



<c what yon are taught to demand of your daugh- 
ic ter, and thus covered with infamy I am to he 
" received to your affe&ions and family ! 

" To be reftored to your love I would give the 
" world, but I cannot facrifice for it confcience 
u and truth. God will not abandon me, although 
" my mother does. 

" I received the Sacrament on Chriflmas-Day, 
cc and Heaven is my witnefs, when I declare my 
" truth, and the innocence of my intentions to- 
" wards all my family. I never wilfully injured 
" any one; I am in love and charity with all; 
" I have never been wanting in filial duty to you, 
" and God grant that you may not have to re- 
C( proach yourfelf with want of maternal affetHon 
" towards me. 

" Put your hand on your heart, Madam, and 
cc afk yourfelf, whether during thirty years I lived 
ic under your eye, you ever obferved in me a 
6C want of duty and love, or a difregard of truth 
" and religion. Yet now you overlook the habits 
" of my life, the proofs of my innocence, and even 
" my folemn oath ; and I declare 3 on the autho- 
" rity of the moll pious minifters, that the very 
cc fpirit of the gofpel is mifapplied againft me. 
fc You adopt the conduft and fentiments of a 
" prejudiced and interefted perfon; you refer from 
6< my oath to a falfe printed trial, for which I am 
" no ways anfwerable; and to extracts of letters, 



C "o ] 



tc whole meaning is mifunderftood or perverted j 
" and you reject from your houfe a charitable 
<c minifter of peace,* after inviting his interfe- 
" rence, and after he had travelled with exertions 
" almoft too much for his age, in order to point 
C£ out to you the means of reconcilement. 

" If you continue inflexible in thefe mocking 
€C conditions, God forbid that I fhould accept 
" them ! — but if the grace of God mould turn 
** your heart to me, I will fly at a moment to 
64 throw myfelf at your feet, and to implore your 
" bleffing ; perfuaded that neither abfence, nor 
" any other hardfliip you may inflict on me, will 
• c ever extinguifh that affection with which I 
e< remain, your much-injured and afflicted daugh- 
" ter, Catherine Meade." 

On the examination of Mrs. Meade at her 
interview with her mother, little comment is ne- 
ceffary. The world will judge of the fituation 
into which fhe was furprifed. They will judge 
whether it was humane or decent at fuch a time, 
without notice, and without witnelfes, to have an 
hoftile crofs-examiner prepared to attack, and 
reporters to record or to conftrue the expreffions 
of a lady, who being raifed from her mother's 
feet, and carried out of the room to recover her- 



Archdeacon Coham. 



[ 111 ] 



felf, had returned to it only to folicit reconciliation 
and bleffing. 

The Bifhop of Lincoln recites a fpeech, which 
Mr. Daubeny then addreffed to Mrs. Meade in 
prefence of her mother; and is it not ftrange that 
his Lordfliip does not perceive that the fpeech 
would have been barbarous and unfeeling, even 
if the faSi ajjerted in it had been true, " that the late 
<c Bifliofi Mofs pronounced Mrs. Meade perjured, if 
cc ever woman was fo" Was that a moment to 
infult her, the fir ft time fhe had feen her mother 
in thirteen years, and the lad time me was ever 
to behold her ? Was fuch a speech ever addreffed 
to a lady in prefence of Grangers? Or was it de- 
licate, or becoming that man, in whofe favour a 
will had been juft figned, conveying to him Mrs, 
Meade's (hare of her mother's fortune. 

The Bifhop might have recited a fimilar (lory 
refpe£ting the late Dr. Blayney, which Mr. 
Daubeny alfo addreffed at the fame time to Mrs. 
Meade; but his Lordfhip probably declined do- 
ing fo, becaufe it has been fo publicly proved to 
be unfounded, that Mr. Daubeny and his friends 
with to have it forgotten, and give it up as a 
miftake. But they were little aware, that like Dr. 
Blayney, the late Bifhop Mofs has left indignant 
denials of the affertion refpe&ing his Lordfliip. 
Whatever impreffions, however, thefe denials 
may now make on the world, the impreffion which 



[ ] 

Mrs. Barnfton received, fuch as it was, me carried 
to the grave, and her acts in confequence are 
paft remedy. 

But even as the Bifhop of Lincoln relates the 
flory of Bifhop Mofs, is there any thing like ar- 
gument or proof in it } The old maxim of cc audi 
£C alteram partem" mult be rejected, before this 
mode of reafoning can obtain credit. If the late 
Bifhopof Bath and Wells liflened to Mr. Daubeny, 
it was becaufe the latter would not otherwife* 
ferve the New-Church. And if his Lordfhip ex- 
prefled an opinion, it could not and did not affect 
Mrs. Meade; becaufe whatever credit was given 
to ex-parte evidence, was given to the per/on, not 
to the facl, of which latter his Lordfhip could not 
be a judge, having heard but one fide. And in 
fact Mrs. Meade knew that he never did pronounce 
as the Bifhop of Lincoln recites from Mr. Dau- 
beny. The Bifhop of Lincoln however, to give, 
as it mould feem, a fort of importance to the 
flory, fays, that Mr. Daubeny related it to Mrs. 
Meade in the prefence of her mother. So muck 
the worfe ! And indeed Mrs. Meade was fo fur- 
prifed at Mr. Daubeny's other flory in prefence 
of her mother, " that Dr. Blayney had alfo fa- 
" voured his caufe juft before his- death," that 
nothing ot that kind could in comparifon affect. 



* Dr, Mofe's letter to Mr. Meade, Jan. 7, 1795. 



C "3 ] 



her. But to fave the time and trouble of com- 
ments, Mr. Meade denies altogether the truth of 
Mr. Daubeny's affertion, recited by the Bifliop of 
Lincoln : and he can fortunately produce de- 
cifive authority for contradicting it.* 

Extract of a Letter from the Rev. Dr. Moss 

to Mr. Meade. 

" Jan. 7, 1799. 

cc That you may no longer remain under any 
s< mifapprehenfions in regard to my father and 
" myfelf, I mail tell you once for all, that we nei- 
" ther faid nor wrote, nor encouraged the writing 
" of, any thing whatever that reflected on Mrs. 
f* Meade or yourfelf." 

And the Bifliop of Bath and Wells himfelf, 
on hearing that this ftory which the Bifliop of 
Lincoln has recited in his paper, was in circula- 

* Mr. Meade here publicly calls on the Bifliop of Lincoln to 
{late what grounds, what document, or authority, he had for afcri- 
bing to a lady, who was a ftranger to him, a monftrous and (hocking 
aft of wickednefs, as under the fan<£tion of the name of a deceafed 
bifliop ? Mr. Meade ventures to tell the world, that the Bifliop of 
Lincoln had no fort of proof to fupport this (hocking aggrellion, 
but the word of that perfon whom of all others he ought in this 
caufe to have diftrufted ! The affertion is falfe, falfe. But if it 
were true that a bifliop, or any man, on hearing one lide, had been 
rafli enough to decide a caufe, will any man of fenfe fay that fuch a 
decifion is any thing like proof? Or will any man who has an idea 
of juftice call fuch " a fall inveftigation," as the Bifhop of Lincoln 
terms it ? If fuch means of attacking characters be tolerated} what 
fecurity or protection does the law afford ? 

I 



tion, declared it, under his own hand, to be "foul 
" and villainous calumny" Thefe are his Lordfhip's 
words* 

In the following month, February 1799, Dr. 
Blayney wrote to Mr. Meade from Oxford, cc I 
" had a civil meffage from Dr. Mofs, by Mr. 
(< Barker, to affure me that he was perfectly fa- 
<c tisfied with refpeft to you and that neither he 
" nor his father meant to take any other part re- 
" Reeling the matter between you and your 
" adverfary than what is explained in his letter 
" to you;"f which related to Mr. Daubeny's pro* 
feffional character, and his fitnefs to ferve the 
New Church. 

Inftead of a reply to this, the Bifhop of Lincoln^ 
keeping out of fight the only point at ifTue, di- 
rects the mind to what is abfolutely irrelevant* 
" If the Bifhop of Bath and Wells" fays he " did not 
" pronounce Mrs. Meade perjured^ he gave an 
<( unequivocal proof of his being fatisfied with 
cc refpeft to Mr. Daubeny, by licenfmg him to the 

* As the Bifhop of Lincoln requires original documents, Mr. 
Meade refers his Lordfhip to the Rev. Mr. Sibley, in Bath, to whom 
the Bifhop of Bath and Wells wrote; and who gave his Lordfhip's 
letter twice to Mr. Meade, that he might clearly underftand it ; and 
at th e fame time to the Rev. Dr. Gardiner, who accompanied Mr, 
Meade Mr- Sibley no doubt has preferred the letter, in which 
were the above expreffions, and others not Jefs pointed ; and as g. 
gentleman of known candour and confeience, he will not decline tQ 
perform an acl of juftice, if properly called upon to mew it. 
t Mr. Meade has the original. 



[ lis ] 



<£ Free Church at Bath, after a c full inveftigatiovi* 
" of the cafe between you and Mr. Daubeny; and 
" I have Dr. Mofs's authority to fay, that his 
" father did exprefs the moft complete fatisfa&ion 
" with refpect to Mr. Daubeny's character. The 
" ]ate Archbifhop of Canterbury, who was con- 
. " fulted, as being a fubfcriber to the Free Church, 
<c gave his full confent and approbation to Mr. 
P Daubeny's appointment to the Free Church, ,, 8cc. 

Mr. Meade attacked neither Mr. Daubeny's 
public nor private character, much Iefs did he in- 
terfere with the opinion which any bifhop or other 
perfon might entertain of him; he merely fpoke 
to a faff, in defence of his wife; to a Clocking, 
unexampled, and fpeciEc charge, recited by the 
Bifliop of Lincoln, and which Mr. Meade had 
proved to be falfe. And when the Bifhop of 
Lincoln quotes extracts of letters, which he pro- 
feffes to have himfelf juft received on this fubjecl", 
where are his own letters, to which thefe were 
repliesrf How did his Lordfliip reprefent facts? 
And by what ftatements did he folicit thefe letters? 
The anfwer to thefe queftions is by no means ir- 

* This full invejligation was hearing one fide I 

f Did the Bifhop of Lincoln receive or call for thefe replies, 
before he uttered his paper of invectives ? Did he not firji circulate? 
For the circulation by his family, of a paper written by himfelfj 
cannot be prefumed to be without his concurrence. 

I % 



[ "6 ] 



relevant. Let his Lordfhip fhew the letters which 
drew forth the replies; for there need be no 
myftery in the matter. 

That Mrs. Meade made confeffions* of guilt as 
is ungeneroufly afferted, fhe pofitively denies. The 
ftory carries its own refutation : and Providence 
feems to have made her enemies the inftruments 
of confuting themfelves; for in the letter her 
lifter fent to her through Mr. Daubeny himfelf, 
the morning after thefe pretended confeffions are 
faid to have been made, and the fjrft ftep taken 
by either party, me is told that her mother's 
doors are to be (hut againft her and her children. 
" Juftice," fays Mrs. M. Barnfton, " muft firft be 
" done to my mother's and to Mr. Daubeny's 
" chara&er, before you can be received into the 
ec family. Moreover, (Mr. Daubeny's own favour 
<c rite word) moreover {he defires that your chil- 
f c dren may not be fent, as that can anfwer no 
" purpofe while their mother is not received. I 

* Mrs. Meade has never feen a ftatement of the confeffions which 
{lie is faid to have made ; but from what me hears, they confift of 
interpretations put on her words by zealous partifans, who pro- 
bably thought as they wifhed. Mrs. Meade herfelf did not con- 
ceive that any expreffions of her's could, by the raoft ardent ima ? 
ginations, have received the contraction which fhe hears has been 
applied to them. But fhe believes that the hiftory and circumftances 
of the pretended confeffions fpeak for themfelves, without any ne- 
ceffity on her part to declare in a more folemn manner, which me is 
ready any moment to do, that the fentiments afcribed to her were 
never in her thoughts* 



[ 117 ] 



" write this to prevent the difagreeable circum- 
" fiance of your being refufed admittance. You 
" have been told on what terms alone you can be 
<c received! 1 

It is plain then that fhe had not complied with 
their terms ! For if flie had, every bar to her being 
received into her mother's houfe mult have been 
removed, even by their own account. Will any 
man of common fenfe now give credit to that 
fhocking allegation conveyed to Mrs. Meade by- 
Mr. Daubeny, 66 you know that you admitted that 
"you gained' a verdicl for Mr. Meade by your noto- 
cc rioujly-falfe evidence" Does not the aflertion 
carry with it its own condemnation, as well as its 
refutation? Mr. Meade requefts the reader to 
perufe the letters, and the hiftory of that trans- 
action in the Appendix. 

His Lordfhip, proceeding with his paper, re- 
cites the aflertion, " that Mrs. Meade imputed 
" motives to Mr. Daubeny. " Mr. Meade informs 
his Lordfhip, that he is again miftaken. She only 
related facls. The Jury afcribed motives. 

Mrs. Meade alfo begs leave to proteft againfl the 
Bifhop's readinefs to find out motives for her. She 
knew her own, and fwore to them! 

Again, his Lordfhip adopts the impofing pre- 
tence of Mr. Daubeny being " the refirefentative 
" of Mrs. Meade's father/' No doubt he endea- 
voured to be the representative of the whole 



[ 118 ] 



family I But who made him reprefentative ? He 
had married one of Mrs. Meade's fitters, and had 
*been one of her father's three executors, jointly 
with an elder brother-in-law Mr. Sikes, and 
Mrs. Barnfton's brother Mr. Sawbridge, both of 
whom were alive. But what authority had he, 
as executor of a- will, over perfons ?■ or when did 
it ceafe? or was it to extend over Mifs Barnfton, 
at thirty- two, as over her mother, till at eighty- 
five years of age ? 

The Bifhop's recital, cc that Mifs Barnfton being 
"determined on marrying, had made prepara- 
tions for her wedding;" and his Lordfhip's wife, 
Mrs. Tomline, having confidently averred ee that 
<( Mifs Barnfton had even fixed on the wedding- 
cc day previous to the trial," are new proofs of 
the unfitnefs of his Lordfhip for the office into 
which he obtruded himfelf. How could he or 
Mrs, Tomline know her intentions or determi- 
nations, or venture to poifon the minds of her 
friends by fuch ungenerous ftories, even before 
the Bifliop had feen Mr. Meade's papers? The 
fact, is abfolutely unfounded. That friend of 
her late father, into whofe generous family me 
was received, that prote&or and fecond father, 
who, with his excellent wife, had conducted her 
Into Court, laid before her after the trial her whole 
lituation, and earnefily advifed her to marry 
Mr» Meade, himfelf and Mrs. Goddard affifting 



C 119 ] 



c< to expedite all matters before they fliould be 
" obliged to leave home."* 

On the fame foundation does the Biftiop recite, 
ie that the carriage was befpoke before the trial.'* 
How can his Lordfhip fuffer his name to be thus 
trifled with? The coachmaker's books can fupply 
a contradi£Hon to this affertion. Mr. Meade's 
carriage was not bespoke, either before or after the 
trial. For prefled by Mr. Goddard, who, as he 
himfelf fays, was in hafte to go to the Weft of 
England,t and only waited to perform the part of 
a parent by Mifs Barnfton, Mr. Meade fearched, 
fmd found a carriage ready made, and within a 
few days of being finiflied, which he bought of 
Kemp, in Long-Acre.^ The Bifliop even adopts 
an incorre&nefs in flaring the time of Mrs. Meade's 
marriage, for the purpofe, as it fliould feem, of 
giving a little more plaufibility to his argument. 

His Lordfhip having difcovered a want of 
precifion in one ftatement, where indeed preci- 

* See Mr. Goddard's letter to Mrs. Meade's uncle already quoted. 
Dr. Blayney alfo wrote to Mifs Barnfton an excellent paper on the 
fame fubjec~t ? now in Mr. Meade's poffeffion. 

f See his letter already given. 

% If the Bifhop thought thefe ftories worth reciting when he 
believed them to be true, was it not common juftice to retract them, 
when he found that they were falfe? But as his Lordfliip and Mrs. 
Tomline would fcorn to invent fuch tales to injure the reputation 
of perfons whom they do not know, Mr. Meade calls on them to 
recoiled who it was that thus impofed on them; and when they 
have difcovered the author of thefe calumnies, then let the Bimop 



[ 120 ] 

fion was neither affected, nor appeared neceffary, 
has noted it with his ufual fagacity ; and he 
is welcome to all the triumph it can give him. 
Mr. Meade, defcribing Mrs. Barnfton as an aged 
perfon, whofe memory was more likely to fail 
than that of a perfon who was younger by forty 
years, mentioned loofely, " an old lady, near 
" eighty." If Mr. Meade had faid, " between 
" feventy and eighty," he confeffes it would have 
been better. But when the Bifliop of Lincoln 
gravely marks this mighty error, in what light 
will that cenfor appear, who really needs correct- 
ion in that very point on which he prefumes with 
fuch ftri&nefs to correct another ? His Lord- 
fhip pofitively avers, " that Mrs. Barnfton was in 
" truth in her Jeventy-fecond year at the time of the 
" trial" Mr. Meade informs his Lordfhip, " that 
* £ Mrs. Barnfton was in truth in her feventy- fourth year 
" at the time of the trial."* 

Thefe ftories would be hardly worth notice, but 
that the circulation of them by his Lordfhip and 
his family manifeft both his hafte and his partiality. 

apply his own pofition, " that a perfon detected in falfehood is not 
" entitled to credit on any other occafion." 

* It is remarkable too, that his Lordftip faw Mrs. Barnfton's age 
ftated by Mrs. M. Barnfton, in a letter to Mrs. Meade, in Septem- 
ber 1803, when me mentions that her mother had thenpaffed her 
eighty-fifth year. But the Biftiop has only to look to mourning- 
rings of the family, or any other document, and he will fee that 
Mrs. Barnfton wanted only three months of feventy-four, when his 
Lordftiip ventured to alTert " that fhe was in truth in her feventy- 
u fecond year." 



t MB J 



For he never waited to afk whether they were 
true or not ; nor, when they were proved to be 
unfounded, had he the candour to acknowledge 
it. On the contrary, forgetting that thefe (lories 
were brought forward as arguments againfi Mrs. 
Meade; and that their falfehood marked the tem- 
per of her opponents, his Lordfliip thinks it 
enough to fay, " that thefe are nothing to the 
" other points." As if he would infinuate, that 
Mr. Meade, by proving thefe to be falfe, meant . 
to evade any other points. But Mr. Meade ven- 
tures to fay, that there is not a fingle page of his 
whole paper that has not glaring miftakes, not 
to fay more. 

His Lordfliip proceeding gives what he is 
pleafed to call " Mrs. Meade s representations T He 
mould rather have faid, " Mr. Daubeny s rejirefen- 
" taiions for Mrs. Meade." Mrs. Meade would 
have anfwered for herfelf, if me had been applied 
to. And when the Bifhop fays, " that all idea 
c < of her marrying Mr. Meade was underftood to be 
" at an end:" by whom was it underflood? Not 
by Mifs Barnfton ; although fhe was not obliged 
to reveal all her hopes and fears to fo unfeeling a 
relation as Mr. Daubeny. 

As to Mifs Barnfton's betraying what Mr. 
Daubeny faid, (which admits that he did fay 
it) it is fo clearly proved to be falfe, that it is 
aftonilhing the Bilhop would be made the in- 



[ 122 ] 



ftrument of circulating fo unjuft and ungenerous 
an affertion; her endeavours to give Mr. Meade 
an opportunity to. defend himfelf, by know- 
ing clearly the charges againft him, being not 
more earneft than her anxiety to preferve Mr. 
Daubeny from the fufpicion of being Mr. Meade's 
enemy. In July 1791, fhe wrote to Mrs. Gun- 
ning, « Don't tell Mr. Meade half what is faid, 
" it will make him mad.' 5 To Archdeacon Co- 
ham, July 1 791, (< I leave it to your difcretion, 
cc my dear fir, to tell him what you think proper* 
" afraid of his knowing the worft."* To the fame* 
in the fame |month, " The will bufinefs is the 
" matter of importance to be cleared up, to be 
" fure; but to whom? not to Mr. Meade's friends^ 
" not merely to the Daubenys ; but certainly to 
* c my friends, who alone are the people infected." 
To Mrs. Gunning, July 1791, « Be fureyou don't 
<*■ tell Mr. S— — s that Mr. Daubeny is concerned; 
t( nothing would mortify him fo much," To 
Archdeacon Coham, Aug. 1 791, " Mr. Daubeny 
€C mu ft not be fpoken to, for my aim is to keep 
" him out of fight." To her fitter Mrs. Daubeny, 
Auguft 1 79 1, " I was anxious to a degree that 
" the frefh alarms about his character mould not 
64 be fuppofed to come from Mr. Daubeny." To 
her aunt Mrs. Ravenhill, in the fpring of 1792^ 



* Thefe letters are in Mr. Meade's poffeHion. 



t 123 1 



ef God only knows the forrow I have felt on Mr. 
* f Daubeny's account, that he has brought things 
<c to fuch a pafs, that one character cannot be 
<c cleared, but at the expence of the other." 

In a letter, October 1 791, from Dr. Blayney to 
Mifs Barnfton, he remonftrates with her on the 
idlenefs of her endeavours to fcreen Mr. Daubeny. 
<c He is not now," fays Dr. Blayney, " to be made 
<c a bitter enemy; he is already a declared and 
<c implacable one. It is idle to think of leaving 
c: him out, who has been the moft atlive in the 
<c abufe. Recoiled what you have acknowledged 
ce to have heard imputed to Mr. Meade; and by 
" whom have you heard it imputed ? Who has 
* c reprefented Mr. Meade in fuch an odious light 
cc to your mother, and poifoned her mind with 
<c calumnies ? Not Mr. James Daubeny nor Mr. 
ce J. Daubeny, but the perfon whom you wiJJi u 
ie spare. All your relations have imbibed from 
<c one and the fame mouth their prejudices againft 
" Mr. Meade." Mifs Barnfton to her fitter Mrs, 
M. Barnfton, early in 1792, from Mr.Sikes's houfe. 
" Unlefs you can effect, fome condefcenfion on 
<c Mr. Daubeny's part, it is in vain to talk of 
" peace. You grieve me to the foul, but I cannot 
<c help you. I know you think, that becaufe I 
" (hall be fummone I take part againft Mr, 
"Daubeny. God forbid! I go there no more 
€S voluntarily than you will; nor mall I fay more 



[ 124 ] 



C£ than the law will compel me to. People are 
te obliged to appear, I underftand, and bound by 
* c oath f-y what they know. Mr. Daubeny 
" knows as well as I do what he has faid to me. 
" I charge you, as you love your family, that the 
" fteps you now take mult be to conciliate, if you 
fic would do them real fervice. I am, your mod 
* c afflicted, but mod affectionate fitter, 

" C. BARNSTON." 

<c P.S. Pray read this to Aunt Ravenhill, and 
<c advife with her what to do." 

Nothing was plainer, ihan that as Mifs Barn- 
fton from the firft conceived it neceflary that Mr. 
Meade (hould know the charges againft him, in 
order to explain them and to clear himfelf; fp 
Ihe wifhed that not a word more mould be related 
to him than was neceflary for that purpofe. It 
was her earned requeft that nothing mould be 
needlefsly repeated, which might irritate angry 
parties; but that by benevolently concealing what 
might prevent future reconciliation, fhe might 
lay a foundation, as far at lead as me could do, 
for a return of good-will, when paflion mould 
fubfide. 

This referve, arifing from the pureft motives 
of the heart, and chiefly in favour of Mr. Daubeny 
himfelf, the Bifhop of Lincoln, forgetting that a 



[ 125 ] 



foft word fometimes turns away wrath, has thought 
proper to term deceit. And becaufe Mrs. Meade 
expreffed or wrote, " that when me was required 
** in a court of law to fpeak the whole truth on 
Cf oath, there was an end of benevolent referves;" 
his Lordfhip again argues as if he had difcovered 
fomething allied to perjury. But in this part of 
his manufcript the pointing and the narrative are 
fo confufed, that Mr. M: r ade has not always been 
clear whether the fentiments and expreffions are 
thofe of the Bifho j or of Mr. Daubeny ; whether 
they mean to ftate Mrs. Meade's words, or Mr. 
Daubeny's deductions; whether they are impli- 
cations from her filence, or conftruclions of what 
her opponents exprefs for her. 

But the idea of betraying confidence did not 
enter into Mifs Barnfton's mind. When per- 
fuaded that Mr. Meade was perfecuted for no 
other caufe than his attachment to her, could (he 
in honour have done otherwife than inform him 
of what was faid in his abfenCe to the ruin of 
his character, that he might be prepared to vin- 
dicate it ? There was ftill another reafon that 
urged her to do as fhe did, which was, that her 
own happinefs feemed to be interested in it. 
Notwithstanding Mr. Daubeny's influence with 
her mother and fame of her relations, there was a 
very refpefrable branch of the family who faw 
nothing to object to Mr. Meade on account of 



[ 126 ] 



Mr. Daubeny's quarrel with him. By thefe Mn 
Meade was encouraged to renew his addreffes in 
January 1791, when their united intentions were 
fruftrated by alarming infinuations of great crimi- 
nality refpecting a will. But Mifs Barnftpn 
having difcovered in the courfe of time much 
injuftice in thefe infinuations, her confequent 
determinations, together with the interference of 
her relations, mult have prevailed, if Mr. Daubeny 
had not come forward in time with his mocking 
allegations. Then it was, that her friends repre- 
fented to her the impofiibility of their counte- 
nancing a connexion with a perfon, whofe cha- 
racter was queftionable; and pointed out the 
neceffity of Mr. Meade clearing himfelf, if he 
could. Her own ideas correfponded exaclly 
with thofe of her friends. She could not bear 
to marry a man of blafted reputation, and per- 
fuaded, as Hie might afterwards have been, of his 
blaimeleffnefs and integrity, her own honour, fhe 
thought, required that the world fhould think 
well of him too. What then was me to do? She 
•was not enjoined fecrecy by Mr. Daubeny as to 
what he reported to her. On the contrary, **. If 
" 1 had afked Mr. Daubeny, (fays me, in a letter to 
" her mother} whether I fhould tell it again, he 
" would have faid, Yes, with all my heart." And 
again, in a letter to her filler, " I told Mr. Meade 
'* and Dr. Blayney what Mr. Daubeny told me, 



[ 127 ] 



€t as coming from his brothers; I faid> as you faidj 
u that he was not the author of this affair ; and 
" I knew he did not care for my repeating what 
<c he told me, becaufe it did not come from him, 
" and becaufe he faid they had themfelves in- 
" formed Mr. Meade of the particulars." In 
fa£f Mifs Barnfton did not at the time believe 
that Mr. Daubeny had fpoken any thing from 
himfelf, but at fecond-hand from his brothers, 
who were prepared, as he toid her, to make good 
their affertions. She therefore fuppofed they 
would do as he faid, and that matters would be 
brought to a difcuffion between them and Mr; 
Meade, (not in a court of law \ 9 which never entered 
into her head, but before a meeting of friends) when 
fiie hoped that Mr. Meade would be able to make 
.his innocence appear, to the fatisfa&ion even of 
his accufers. And thus me flattered herfelf with 
the momentary belief, that me might become the 
rrieans of reconciling perfons, who through mis^ 
apprehenfion only had been eftranged from each 
other. Unhappily me was but too foon convinced 
that nothing lefs was meant than to allow Mr. 
Meade an opportunity of vindicating himfelf from 
the charges which had been brought againft him. 
But on which fide foever the propofed arbitration 
failed, it certainly was not her fault that it did fo. 
Her mifery on the occaiion was extreme, and can- 
not be better expreffed than by Hating the letters 



[ 128 ] 



that paffed between her and her friends before 
the trial; fome of them preffing and terrifying 
her from giving any evidence in Court, others 
urging every argument to convince her of the 
duty and neceility of it. Her mother wrote to 
her thus: " I mud tell you, that if Mr. Meade 
Cc begins with law, your brother (Mr. Daubeny) 
tfc will go on with it, and other perfons in the 
6£ family be brought forward; in which cafe your 
cc mother, if God enables her, mud appear to 
Ci give evidence againft her daughter, as me will 
" not fit quiet, and fee her fon-in-law's character 
" <c facrificed to Mr. Meade " 

About the fame time another letter from Mr. 
Sik.es to Mr. Goddard was fhewn to Mifs Barn- 
fton, in which were the following words: " Mrs. 
cc Barnfton fees her daughter's conduct in appear- 
" ing againft Mr. Daubeny in fuch a light, that 
" the mother and daughter can never fee each 
* { other again, if {lie goes into Court." 

Mifs Barnfton was fo diftrefted by thefe letters, 
that flie wrote to Mr. Meade in the following 
language: " My comfort is for ever broken up; 
<c alienated from my mother, and driven to ap- 
" pear a chief evidence againft a brother, with 
* c whom for twelve years I lived in perfect amity 
cc and friendfhip, and the hufband of my deareft 
<c filler, the whole world is indifferent to me ; 
*' and what was once a paradife of peace and 



[ m ] 



Cs harmony, is now a fcene of wretchednefs and 
u difcord. If you muft purfue law, I only pray, 
" that I may die when the trial is over." 

In the fame affli&ed ftile fbe wrote alfo to Mr. 
Coham and Dr. Blayney, and flie received the 
following anfwers. 

Archdeacon Coham to Mijs Barnston. 

" Dear Madam, Potterne, May 1792. 

cc I received your diftrefling letter, and could 
" fill this with lamenting your hard cafe; but nei- 
" ther charity to your relations, nor your own 
<c reluctances, muft be indulged to the injury of 
" my friend or his caufe. You know that Dr. 
" Blayney was always an advocate for arbitration; 
" but now he doubts with me. If our virtue 
" feem fomewhat auftere, you are to confider 
<c what two rigid mafters you have to ferve a 
cc truth andjuftice; thefe muft be your counfellors 
" for confolation. 

u I am, dear Madam, &c. 

" A. Coham." 

Dr. Blayney, finding that {he ftill wanted great 
fupport to fatisfy her mind, and ftrengthen it for 
an appearance in Court, exprelfed himfelf in the 
following energetic terms. 

k 



[ 130 ] 



" Dear Madam, Poulfhot, May 27, 1792, 

" With refpeft to your perfonal diftrefs, 
i( heaven knows how fincerely I pity you, and 
cc would go a great way to relieve you, if I 
cc knew how to do it without violating the prin- 
€c ciples of honour, juftice, and friendfhip. But 
6( can I perfuade Mr. Meade, would you even 
cc wifh he fhould be perfuaded, to facrifice the 
<c deareft interefts of his life, for the fake of fpa- 
cc ring you thofe uneafy fenfations of which you 
" are fo apprehenfive? Call to mind, how often 
i( you have yourfelf urged upon him the neceffity 
ic of vindicating his character. Nor can you now 
<c think of giving him up, without incurring even 
" greater infamy than would fall to his fhare. 
" How am I fhocked at hearing of a parent, of 
" relations, and friends, foliciting you to bid de- 
€c fiance to every moral and religious confideration, 
<c and preffing you to proftitute your confcience, 
cc for the fake of fparing an unfeeling brother-in- 
€c law (a mo ft unfeeling one he has been to you) 
" a difgrace which he has, you know, moft auda- 
" cioufly provoked. I will not fay with what 
cc eye the laws of their country will be difpofed 
f< to regard and refent fuch pernicious attempts 
<c to corrupt the evidence which public juftice 
" calls for; but I will be bold, as a Chriftian Mi- 
a nifter, to fay, that in the fight of God they are 



i i3i i 



cc mofl abominably wicked. For what in the name 
u of God do they tempt you to do? You cannot 
" evade appearing in Court, whither you are fum- 
" moned. It is well known what you have already 
<c openly and voluntarily declared: and do they ex- 
" peel: you publicly tofalfifyand contradict yourfelf? 
" Do they expect you to prevaricate in the face 
<k of God and the world ? Do they require you 
Cf to perjure yourfelf, by fuppreffing one tittle of 
** the truth ? Heaven forbid that you mould be 
" fo profligately wicked, and at once give up all 
" hopes of both prefent and eternal happinefs ! 
<f Did Mr. Meade's caufe require any fuch fupport, 
" believe me, I would inftantly and with abhor- 
cc rence renounce it. But no fuch thing; truth, 
6t and truth only, is its fure ground of dependence. 
u They terrify you with threats of bringing your 
" mother into Court to fwear againft you ; truft 
" me, they dare not do it ; they dare not expofe 
" her to public examination. How muchfoever 
i* under undue influence, I cannot believe her fo 
<e unprincipled as to deliver an evidence upon 
c< oath contrary to truth. And you muft know 
<c how much her fpeaking what me knows 
<f to be true, muft ferve Mr. Meade's caufe. No- 
" Thing but pity and compaffion for her and for 
' c you has prevented Mr. Meade from fubpcena- 
" ing her. But if (he appear, let the inhumanity 
44 be with thofe that brought her forward; fhe 

K 2 



[ 132 ] 



c<r muft be clofely and ftri&ly interrogated. Your 
sc fituation, Madam, I muft confefs to be a hard 
cc one. You are called to a fevere trial, a pain- 
cc ful ftruggle between natural affection and con- 
Ci fcience. But the greater the difficulty the 
cc greater will be your reward, if you ftedfaftly 
" perfevere in doing what is right. The laws of 
" God, you know, are ever to be preferred to the 
ie will of man; nor are we at liberty to comply 
cc with the requifitions of an earthly parent, when 
&i inconfiftent with thofe eternal obligations of 
" truth and juftice, which are laid upon us by our 
(C Heavenly One. On the contrary, our religion 
€i exprefsly requires us to give up the nearer! and 
Ci deareft relations, rather than forego one of thofe 
" primary duties, which it enforces on our practice, 
t: 6 He that loveth father or mother more than me, 
Ci 6 is not worthy of me.' Do they threaten you 
cc then with breaking off all connection with you? 
" Fear them not. If they forfake you for doing 
iC what is juft and right, there is yet one that will 
" take you up, that both can and will compenfate 
<<r the lofs by other friends. And dread not the 
ec reproach of men, whilft you have the teftimony 
fC of your own confcience in your favour, and the 
ec certainty of being approved by Almighty God. 
<e But mould you be prevailed upon to do, what 
" God and your own heart muft condemn, you 
"may well tremble for the confequences j the 



[ 133 ] 



« lofs of peace of mind here, and eternal mifery 
" hereafter. 

cc You will pardon me, Madam, for having thus 
" taken upon me to remind you of your duty; 
cc not that I think you ignorant of it, but to keep 
" you fledfaft under trial, and to oppofe the arti- 
" fices of thofe who would miflead you. Let 
" Mr. S. if you pleafe, or any other, fee what I 
" have written; if they can difprove it, let them 
<c do it; if not, let them ceafe to trouble you. 

" I purpofe being in London on Tuefday; I glory 
<c in Handing by Mr. Meade, as an oppreffed and 
" injured man ; and I trull I fhall not be afhamed 
<c of the juflice of his caufe. You know my 
<c principles, and as far as they allow, I fhall be 
" ever happy to approve myfelf, Madam, 

" Your molt obedient humble fervant, 

" Benjamin Blayney." 

Mr. Goddard alfo wrote to her thus, cc I am 
H more and more confirmed, that it is indifpen- 
" fably neceffary that the profecution be conti- 
" nued, fo as to obtain a legal decifion, be the 
" iffue what it may; as there is no other method 
<e for the juftification of Mr. Meade's character, 
<£ in which your own is involved ; it is an act of 
" juflice you owe to yourfelf to vindicate it. 
" Conciliatory meafures are never to be departed 



{ 134 ] 

- w from when they can be adopted; but unfortu- 
* c nately thefe have been excluded ; not by you, 
" nor by Mr. Meade, but by his opponent, on 
" whom folely the whole blame mud reft, in 
" having driven Mr. Meade to the neceffity of 
" obtaining a public juftification. — How could 
" you refpecl: a man under a ftigma in the world ; 
f( would not the world fay, you cared not what 
" his character is, provided you married him ? — 
ie He made, or acceded more than once to, pro- 
* c pofals of arbitration, which by one or other 
" quirk were as repeatedly evaded by his oppo- 
" nent; this is a folace to you. I hold chara&er 
fC in a very different light from money tranfa&ions; 
" however ready I might be to facrifice money 
" for peace, I would not fuffer character to be 
" frittered away. Can they be your friends, who 
" advife you to the contrary ? 

" Our hearts and doors are ever open to you; 
u deny us not the gratification of keeping up 
" your fpirits, and affording you every comfort 
w by proving to you the fincerity of our friendftiip 

and attachment. I am, &c. 

" John Goddard."* 

Thefe, together with Mr. Goddard's perfonal 
attendance, on whofe judgment me greatly relied, 



* Mr. Meade has the original draft in Mr. Goddard's writing, 



[ 135 ] 



enabled her to go through the difficult and 
painful talk allotted to her; in doing which her 
confcience does not reproach her with the leaft 
wilful exaggeration, or deviation from the truth. 

What candid mind, then, muft not perceive the 
cruelty and injuftice of taxing her with being 
acceffary to her brother-in-law's puniflimenr, 
when her appearance in Court, and the evidence 
flie gave there, were impofed upon her by ftrong 
neceffity, and could not be evaded, without vio- 
lating the moil facred obligations of duty, religion, 
and honour? 

When the Bimop pretends to give the chara&er 
of Mrs. Meade in her family, from whom is 
his character of her drawn ? Is it from her only 
Uncle ? her only Aunt? any one of her numerous 
and refpe&able Coufins? old Friends, Acquain- 
tances, or Connections of the family ? Is it from 
any of her Neighbours, rich or poor? No, in 
truth ! His Lordfhip has given a long letter, and 
has thought proper, irrelevant as it is, to quote it 
in full, written to Mr. Daubeny by a friend of his, 
a total ftranger to Mr. and Mrs. Meade, having 
never feen either of them in his life; a gentleman 
who married one of the junior ladies of the fa- 
mily, a niece of Mrs. Meade's, fome years after 
Mr. Daubeny's trial, and who knows nothing 
of Mr. or Mrs. Meade, but through Mr. Daubeny 
and his friends, and whofe letter was a reply to 



[ 136 ] 



Mr. Daubeny s own Jiatementl What can his 
Lordftiip's object be in this? Is there one argu- 
ment or proof brought forward on the queftions 
at iffue ? His Lordfhip could not feel pleafure 
merely in reciting fuch letters* againft a lady; 
itill lefs could he feel gratification in promoting 
family difcord, rather than harmony ! 

But for Mrs. Meade's character, an appeal 
might be made from the Bifhop's prejudices, and 
from the refentments of Mr. Daubeny, to Mr. 
Daubeny himfeif in his temperate days ; and on 
this occafion, it is prefumed not one of her family 
can deny the facts. From her youth up to the 
middle age of her life, that is, from the age of 
eighteen to thirty-two, no one knew her better, 
few fo well as himfeif. She lived almoft wholly 
in his fociety; me was as a fecond mother to his 
children, and his value and efteem of her had 
their foundation in a raoft intimate acquaintance 
and unprejudiced judgment. During the whole 
of that period, me continued his favourite and 
friend, his condant companion, confidante, and 
counfellor; his expreffions were the mon: affecti- 
onate towards her, and his confidence in her un- 

* Mrs. Meade fincerely laments that any of her connections are 
deluded. She is not un acquainted with the means adopted to excite 
and to keep up that delufion; and me can for that reafon the more 
eafily excufe it. She would hope that the time is not diilant when 
they may fee their miftakes, which they cannot be more delirous^ 
tfcan fhe will be ready, to forget, 



[ 137 ] 



bounded. But the moment that the affections of 
her heart difpofed her to marry, he firft tried all 
means to defeat her plans, and afterwards never 
ceafed to be her cruelleft, bittereft enemy. Since 
her marriage, he knows nothing of her chara&er 
as a wife or a mother, as the miftrefs of a family, 
or a neighbour; but thofe that do know her 
would tell his Lordfhip, that there does not live 
a woman of a more pure and fpotlefs name; nor 
one whofe character is more beloved and efteemed 
by all who are acquainted with it. 

Mr. Meade can well believe that the Bifhop 
was at firft. completely deceived, and that, as na- 
turally as the dropping of water hollows a ftone, 
his Lordfhip caught the prejudices of inflamed 
parties and partizans, to whom he had confined 
himfelf, and foon became a decided enemy to Mr, 
and Mrs. Meade. His name and zeal excited 
high expectations in his party, and he encouraged 
them; fo that he feems to have forgotten even his 
own idea of his being a Judge, for in the outfet of 
his manufcript he fays that he {hall " endeavour" 
to prove that what Mrs. Meade folemnly fwore 
was falfe ; and " that the fubjecl: was important, 
C( as it involved Mr. Daubenys char after ^ without 
any feeling for Mrs. Meade's. How elfe would 
any gentleman have voluntarily applied to a lady 
fuch expreffions,as u incorretl principles" — " deceit, 1 * 
— " tying" — "falfe-fwearing,"—" perjury " and fuch 



[ 138 ] 



like? What but the madnefs of prejudice could 
make him overlook a number of contradictions 
recited by himfelf? In the firft document he 
quotes, he faw the difficulty of rinding out fome 
plaufible objections for Mrs. Barnfton againft Mr. 
Meade. She avers " that her objections were 
" prior to the affairs abroad. " Again, " that the 
cc affairs abroad were the ground of her object- 
* c ions.'* " She and her daughter Mrs. M. Barn- 
ct fton attefted a paper which would have been 
" important for Mr. Daubeny's caufe, but it came 
" too late for the trial;" forgetting that Mrs. M. 
Barnfton was at the trial. Mrs. Barnfton fays, 
Cc that Mr. Daubeny did not influence her by his 
" accounts again, <c that her opinion was fully 
* c decided by thefe accounts. " " Mr. Meade's 
cc treatment of Mrs. Barnfton affected her ob- 
tc je£tions $" and, " her objections were faid to be 
<c prior to this treatment. " The Bifliop recites 
Mrs. Barnfton flating Mifs Barnfton to have 
fworn, C{ that her mother was dejirous of her mar- 
* rying Mr. Meade that <c her mother wi/Iied 
i( it " &c. Mifs Barnfton fwore no fuch thing. 
His Lordfhip continues his recital, c< that nothing 
" could alter Mrs. Barnfton's opinion." This lan- 
guage, though neither natural to a parent, nor to 
the mind of Mrs. Barnfton, was much in character 
with thofe who conveyed to her the falfe accounts 
of her daughter's oath, or who prepared a paper 



[ 139 ] 



for her to fign on the fubjeft. His Lord (hip 
quotes Mrs. Barnfton faying " that her daughter 
<c was to judge for her own happinefs." And 
he alfo quotes Mr. Daubeny defiring " that the 
" mother would judge for her daughters happi- 
" nefs." Perhaps they would all have done better 
to have left an independent woman at thirty to 
judge for her own happinefs, efpeciaily when all 
the objections fpecified againft the manftie chofe, 
feem to be, " that he was born in Ireland." 

Why does the Biftiop pafs over, " that the letter 
" mentioned to have been written by Mrs. Meade 
" to her fifter was an anjwer to one received P Why 
not give Mrs. M. Barnfton's firft letter, and Mrs. 
Meade's anfwer? Can it be, becaufe that firjl 
letter proves " that Mrs. Meade did not make the 
" required confeffions fo falfely imputed to her?" 
How does it happen, that the Biftiop never quotes 
but for one fide? Mrs. M. Barnfton's letter was 
fent exprefs by Mr, Daubeny to Mrs. Meade, the 
morning after the interview, and was the firft 
ftep* taken after it. 

The Biftiop again fays, " that Mrs. Meade did 
<c not mention, in any letter to Mr. Daubeny or 
" other relations, the words fhe fwore to have 
" heard from him:" and therefore he would in- 
fer that Mr. Daubeny never uttered them. But 
if he had read Mifs Barnfton's letters, even thofe 

# See it in the hiftory of the interview in the Appendix. 



[ 140 ] 



which were before his eyes, he would have feen 
that fhe mentioned it over and over again ; not to 
Mr. Daubeny ; for why mould me ? It is difficult 
to conceive a reafon for her telling him what he 
had told her; but to her intimates, whom it con- 
cerned to know it, (lie mentioned it, and wrote 
it almoft every day from July to Oclober. But i 
It was Mr. Daubeny's aim to keep himfelf out of 
fight; and to infinuate both to Mifs Barnfton, and 
to every one elfe, that all the fufpicions and 
charges refpefting the will originated with his 
brothers, and not with him. Mifs Barnfton at 
firft believed it to be fo ; and afterwards, when 
flie had good reafons for altering her opinion, fhe 
concealed her real fentiments, and fpoke to him 
and of him in the moft favourable terms, in pros 
peel of differences being in time reconciled, and 
family peace reftored. " My aim," fays fhe, in 
a letter to Mrs. Gunning, December 1791, " has 
" been all along to keep Mr. Daubeny out of 
*' light; any thing to counteract this widens the 
" breach, not between Mr. Meade and Mr. Dau- 
ce beny, but with all my family." But whether 
Mr. Daubeny was or was not the inventor, it was 
he who adopted and propagated the flander, and 
therefore it was Mr. Daubeny alone whom Mr. 
Meade could make accountable for it. 

But there was another evidence befides Mifs 
Barnfton's which was intended and ought to 



[ 141 y 

have been called for at the trial. Why it was 
omitted is not eafy to fay; except it was that 
the counfel faw the fa£t fufficiently proved with- 
out it. In the interview which Mifs Barnflon 
had with the Rev. Mr. Kooker, at Mr. Daubeny's 
houfe, in July 1791, Mr. Hooker told her, " that 
" he had heard every thing from Mr. Daubeny 
" about the will;" he even told her, CJ that Mr. 
" Meade's particular friends did not care to have 
cc any thing to do in it;" and he added, " that if 
t* the quarrel between Mr. Daubeny and Mr. 
cc Meade could be adjufted, the will bufinefs was 
" too ferious a matter not to be rigidlv fcru- 
<c tinized;" and he advifed her "to guard herfelf 
<c with caution." But the Biihop fays, " there is 
" no evidence of the converfation between Mifs 
" Barnfton and Mr. Daubeny." What evidence 
can there be of the private converfation of two per- 
fons, but the oath of the parties, and records made 
of the converfation at the time? For the dire& 
teftimony, fee Mrs. Meade's uncontradicted oath, 
near fourteen years on record. For the collateral 
evidence, fee her various letters and journals al- 
ready quoted, and afk her intimate friends; for 
although fome are dead, yet many ftil] furvive. 

And when his Lordfhip fays, " that no other 
" witnefs was called to prove the converfation," 
in the name of wonder, what witnefs could he 
expect ? He could never expeft that Mr. Daubeny 



[ 142 ] 



would turn againft himfelf ; and he only was 
prefent. But when his Lordfhip adds, 8 * that 
<c evidence was produced that Mr. Daubeny held 
" a different language in his family what does 
he mean by evidence!' Is the uncontradicted 
oath of a difpaffionate witnefs no evidence; and 
the word of an interefted man, againft whom a 
verdift on that very ground (lands recorded, re- 
ceived by the Bifhop as good evidence ? In what 
court or code is this ufage found ? Has not the 
Bifhop feen, that on the continent Mr. Daubeny 
endeavoured to prevent Mifs Barnfton attaching 
herfelf to Mr. Meade, on his own* account, and on 
his own account folely? And that on his return 
to England he found it expedient to urge the 
more plaufible pretence of breach of promifes, 
and of ill treatment of himfelf? And that when 
both of thefe pleas were reje&ed by the thinking 
and independent part of Mifs Barnfton's family, 
infinuations about a will were brought forward, 
and became a more ferious engine in his hands? 
And that when he faw this laft bulinefs muft bring 
him into a court of law, then he might conveni- 
ently have held a different language, j aft enough 
to fcreen himfelf, leaving the plot to work for 
itfelf? His Lordfhip may reft affured that there 
were few of the Barnfton family, but muft have 
given a teftimonv.not inconfiftent with Mifs Barn- 

* See his own words in his letter already quoted, 



[ 143 ] 



fton's, if they alfo had been put on their oath, as 
me was. 

His Lordfliip's language as he proceeds is very- 
extraordinary indeed! Who before him ever 
prefumed to infmuate, " that Mrs. Meade was 
" convi&ed of falfe fwearing?" Convicted! What 
does he mean? Does his Lordihip, w r ith all 
his references to courts and legal ufage, know 
the import of thefe w T ords? Does he forget the 
trial and the verdict? Is fuch an affertion con- 
fident with juftice, or truth, or decency, or law? 
Regardlefs, however, of direct or collateral evi- 
dence, he prefumes to fay, applying it to Mrs. 
Meade, u that where a witnefs is convicted of 
** falfe fwearing in one inftance, his or her tefti- 
4( mony deferves no credit !" But Mr. Meade will 
leave the reader to judge of this language, and 
proceed with the Bilhop's paper. 

H o w h i s Lor d flii p c a n fp e ak o f c e t h e improbability 9 
of Mr. Daubeny's faying any thing to prevent the 
match is wonderful, after he had feen Mr. Dau- 
beny's own acknowledgment in his letter* to Mifs 
Barnfton; and after he had heard of his language 
before Mrs. Gunning; and after his Lordfhip 
had related Mr. Daubeny's endeavours, in the 
prefence of Mrs. Ravenhill, to fecure Mifs Barn- 
lion from marrying Mr. Meade. All the world 
knew, that from the fird moment he fufpected an 
attachment at Spa, he proceeded from one clegree 

* Already quoted. 



[ 144 J 



of contrivance to another " to prevent," as he 
expreffed it to Mrs. Gunning, " Mr. Meade from 
" carrying off a fecond io,oool. from the family.'* 
And as to what Mr. Daubeny fays " that he 
" related to Mifs Barnfton, at his houfe in the 
" Crefcent, in regard to other circumftances that 
" happened at Spa;" fhe being little interefted 
in that part of the converfation, can neither fay 
whether it is true or falfe. But it is wholly irre- 
levant, and the Bifhop faw it was fo, and by no 
means proves that Mr. Daubeny did not fay the 
words which (lie depofed to. 

The Bifhop fays, " Mr. Daubeny is ready to fwear 
to the jubftance " Mrs. Meade has fworn to the 
words ! His Lordfhip and Mr. Daubeny infer what 
her fentiments were. She has [worn to her own ! 

The Bifhop's remark u on the confummate ad- 
" drefs with which Mr. Meade's papers are drawn 
cc up," is very unexpected; becaufe Mr. Meade 
never confidered his papers as drawn up in any 
order, or indeed drawn up at all. They were 
merely detached defcriptions of paffing circum- 
ftances, with the original letters, or their copies 
connected with them, and committed to writing 
at the time, as the events occurred, during the laft 
twelve years. They could be no anfwer to an 
adverfary's ftatement, which Mr. Meade had not 
feen. But the Biihop's remark appears to be 
made for the purpofe of contrafting Mr. Meade's 



[ 145 ] 



head with his heart; for it is followed by the as- 
fertion, " that there is a want of correct principle 
" in both Mr. and Mrs. Meade." An aflertion, 
fupported by fo unfair a reprefentation of a fatl 
before his Lordfhip's eyes, that it is prefumed his 
Lordfhip again owes it to his character to make an 
acknowledgment for his own want of corre&nefs ; 
by which, from whatever caufe it proceeded, he 
has fliewn himfelf unfit for the office he ajjumed 
of a judge in this cafe. His Lordfhip ventures to 
quote Mr. Meade as juftifying a violation of pro- 
mifes, on grounds fo palpably unfupported by the 
paper from which he quoted, that a more marked 
inftance of partiality or carelefsnefs was perhaps 
never exhibited. The paper from which the 
Bifhop profeffes to quote, was written by Mr. 
Meade, and was one of thofe which he entrufted 
to his Lordmip on his application; defcribing, 
among other matters, the nature of certain pro- 
mifes obtained by Mr. Daubeny from Mr. Meade 
and Mifs Barnfton feparately, the object of the 
promifes being to prevent their ever thinking of 
each other with a view to marriage. 

In page 8 of that paper, it is faid, " But 
" Mr. Daubeny's conduit foon appeared very 
k< unjuftifiable. For availing himfelf of the afFec- 
" tion and confidence of two perfons not lefs in- 
" dependent than himfelf, he reftrefented each to 
" the other in fuch a light as to deceive both ejfeclually" 



[ 146 ] 



Again, in pages 35, 36, 38, " Mr. Daubeny re* 
" quefted of Mifs Barnfton a facrifice out of friend* 
€S (hip tohimfelf; adding, that Mr. Meade had 
se fpoken of her with indifference, and even with 
" difresjiecl." Again ; " and that facrifice Mr. 
<c Daubeny obtained, not by mifreprefentations only, 
<c and by engaging each feparately not to men- 
<c tion the fubjeft to the other; but by addreffing 
" both foon after their meeting, and before their 
" minds could be decided on the fubje<£L" Again; 
" the facred manner of appealing, which Mr. 
* £ Daubeny afcribes to Mr. Meade, he abfolutely 
66 difavows; although it makes little difference to 
*' him whether it be true or falfe ; becaufe it is 
" clear that no one is morally or religioufly an- 
" fwerable for promifes, made with good faith, 
" but obtained by falfe refirefentations" Again; C€ c the 
" c offence,' fays Mr. Daubeny, c is, that he was 
gc 6 deceived by Mifs Barnfton, and that Mr. Meade 
" c broke his folemn word/ Admitting this for 
" a moment to be true, without any qualification ; 
* c and admitting what is true, that fuch conducl 
<c would be zveaky unfortunate, and highly reprehen- 
" fible ; yet would it not perhaps be criminal to 
" that degree, and to that extent, in which Mr. 

Daubeny would have it to appear; for the inge- 
" nuity of malice cannot difcover the moft diftant 
cc fentiment of unkindnefs or injury to any one 
" living ; and the heart might have been fincere 'm 



t w ] 

afTurances, which it was unable to fulfil. But 

tc if every firomife was obtained by imjiojition^ then 
" perhaps there will be little queftion as to the 
* f intentions of Mr. and Mrs. Meade, and the part 
" they mould have adled." 

* It was plain that deception, mifrefirefentation, and 
hnfio/ition,wei'e the grounds, all through that paper, 
on which Mr. Meade expreffed the promifes not 
to be binding. But the Bifhop was pleafed to 
fujiftrefs Mr. Meade's reafons, and to fupply others 
for him, " charging him," in a philippic of fome 
pages, tC with a want of correct principles, in. 
" juftifying a breach of folemn promifes on the 
cc ground that Mifs Barnfton and himfelf were 
" independent, and travelled with Mr. Daubeny 
" at a joint expence;" alferting, " that Mr. Meade 
" calls a violation of facred promifes referve" 
and adding, u that deceit led Mr. and Mrs. Meade 
u to a difregard of truth 5" and this to falfe fwear- 
ing, &c. with much more fuch language as this.* 

* Mr. Meade pointed out difiinctly to his Lordfhip thefe his own 
mifreprefentations ; who, although he could not deny them, did not 
think proper to apologife for them. On the contrary, he adopted 
a lingular ground for defence. " Mr. Daubeny's conduct might 
" have been exactly what you ftate it to have been," fays his Lord- 
fhip, " yet would it not juftify a breach of promife in you and 
" Mrs. Meade." How far the Bifhop acted juftly in mifreprefenting 
a paper confided to his honour, or liberally, in not acknowledging 
it, Mr. Meade will not decide. But when his Lordfhip avers that 
perfons are bound by promifes obtained by impofition and deception, 
(for thefe are exactly what Mr, Meade flated) Mr. Meade appeals 
with confidence from his Lordfhip to the fenfe of mankind, 



[ 148 ] 



InMr.Meade r spaper juft mentioned, and which 
was mifreprefented as above, it was dated, " that 
<< Mr. Meade did at one time, while abroad, 
ce propofe to open his mind to Mr. Daubeny, not 
<c in confidence, but in reproach; that there could 
cc be no reafon for his not doing fo, for that neither 
" he or Mifs Barnfton owed Mr. Daubeny any 
" duties, nor even hofpitality; for they were a 
" party of brothers and filters, all equal, travelling 
<c together at a joint expence. But that on Mifs 
" Barnfton's account there were invincible rea- 
f? fons againft his doing as he propofed; for flie 
ff was not only fubject to him while they travelled, 
< c but much at his mercy, from the representations 
" he might and probably would make, by letters, 
cc to poifon her family at home againft Mr. Meade. 
«* She therefore refolved, in common prudence and 
* c neceffity, to adopt a plan of the ftricteft referve 
" while me was abroad only intending on her 
return home to endeavour to obtain from Mr. 
Daubeny 's juftice and affection a releafe from 
her promifes, rather than to infift on it by charg- 
ing him with unfairnefs in obtaining them. But 
even the fcripture itfelf may be attacked with at 
momentary fuccefs, as Mr. Meade's paper has 
been. Select a few paffages, keep back a few 
fentences, don't mind the context, and the work 
is effected. The learned Archdeacon Paley has 
well obferved, C( that by fuppreffing evident facts 



[ U9 ] 



* to gratify any prejudices, the beft hiftorians 
e< would lofe all authority, and fink into the cha- 
" rafter of party writers." 

It was with great furprize Mr. Meade perceived 
a relu&ance in the Bifhop of Lincoln to fee him. 
He had flattered himfelf, that when his Lordfliip 
was affured that his whole paper was full of mis- 
takes, he would be anxious to fee the gentleman, 
whofe wife's character he had attacked j and would 
paufe, before he fufFered any inve&ives to appear 
in public under his name. On this ground it was 
that Mr. Meade was requefted by three clergymen 
to propofe a meeting with his Lordfliip, which 
the Biihop thought proper to decline ; and in the 
mean time his paper was eagerly circulated by 
his connexions. Like an infallible judge, his 
Lordfliip conveys his fentence to the party he 
condemns; as if he would pronounce, "you 
" think yourfelves protected, becaufe a law-fuit 
" terminated in your favour thirteen years ago; 
" but / have overturned the judgment of law; / 
" have pronounced the verdicl erroneous, and a, 
££ principal witnefs perjured; / have tried the 
sc caufe again, although one of the parties knew 
<* nothing of my intentions, for / am not like 
u ordinary judges, who fee and hear both parties, 
* c Ha ing thus condemned you here, I refer you 
* f to the everlafting judgment of Him-, whom / 



[ 150 ] 



$ know better than yourfelves that you have 
" offended." 

But from the Bifhop of Lincoln's opinion Mr. 
Meade begs to refer the reader to another divine, 
not fo high in rank as his Lordfhip, but in learn- 
ing and integrity equal to any one, the late Regius 
Proirffor of Hebrew in the Univerfity of Oxford- 
No man ftudied this affair more, and no man fo 
well underftood it, as Dr. Blayney. He was near 
a twelvemonth correfponding* on it with Mr. 
Daubeny and his friends, and having heard and 
weighed the arguments, he has left his folemn 
judgment on this cafe,dire£Uy oppofite to the hafty 
opinion which the Bifhop of Lincoln has given. 

After detailing all the circumftances, as be- 
tween A. and B. and C.f he concludes with a 
ce Queftion. Whether, under the circumftances 
" ftated, the parties are bound by the ties of ho- 
" nour and conference to an obfervance of pro- 
^ mifes fo exa&ed and fo given ?" 

" Anjwer. I am clearly of opinion, from the 

above ftatement of fa&s, fuppofmg it to be juft, 

* His account of his correfpondence on the fubjedl was by his 
permiffion printed in a pamphlet which Mr. Meade wrote eleven 
years ago, as an anfwer to a former attack of Mr. Daubeny. A 
few copies of which Mr. Meade ftill has. 

f The whole is an admirable compofition, and a fine fpecimen of 
juft reafoning. The original is in Mr. Meade's poffeffion, who has 
keen always difpofed to mew this or any other document quoted 
or referred to in this book, to gentlemen whom a liberal motiye 
induced to wifh to fee it. 



[ 151 ] 



« that neither A. nor B. are under any obligation 
" whatever to fulfil promifes made under fuch 
* undue influence. It is not ftated what intereft 
« C. had in the performance of thefe promifes : 
<c but be it what it will, no man is allowed in 
" juftice to avail himfelf of his own wrongdealing. 
** A court of equity would without any hefitation 
u dilfolve any obligation into which fraud or de- 
" ception had entered : the aft would not be 
« deemed voluntary; for it would be prefumed 
" that the will of the parties would not have con- 
" curred in it, had the matter been ftated as it 
" ought to have been. And I fee no reafon why 
u a court of honour and confcience fhould not 
" upon the fame principles determine in like 
M manner. It was not juft or honourable inC to 
" exa& fuch promifes by fuch means. But with 
" refpecl to the parties that promifed, I will take 
<c upon me to maintain, that if they are confcious 
" they mould not have entered into the engage- 
ment, but for the impofltion ; they are as free 
" in honour and confcience to follow the bent of 
" their own inclinations, as if no fuch promife 
" had ever exifted. Benj. Blayney." 

To the above fhall be added the opinion of 
another dignitary of the church, formed after 
reacting the Bifhop of Lincoln's papers; and to 
whom, as a perfeft ftranger to Mr, Meade, thefe 



[ 152 ] 



papers, with all other neceffary documents which 
the Bifhop had feen, were referred by Mr. George 
Sandford, for the candid opinion of a difpaffionate 
man, 

cc To George Sandford, Efq. 
" Dear Sir, 

ct I return you Mr. Meade's papers ; and after 
" the moll impartial investigation of them, with 
(( the Bifhop of Lincoln's reafoning on the Subject, 
" the refult is a conviction in my own mind that 
(e Mr ? Daubeny, unwilling that his fifter-in-law 
" mould marry, did procure promifes from her and 
" Mr. Meade Separately, not to proceed in fuch 
<c a connection; who having difcovered imposition 
" that had been practifed on them, no longer 
(e confidered themfelves bound by promifes fo ob- 
ec tained. That Mr. Daubeny having unbounded 
" influence over Mrs. Barnfton did prevail on her 
" to oppofe the match; and though Mrs. Meade, 
f ! very truly I believe, fwore that me had obtained 
Ki her mother's confent ; yet * I think it equally 
<c clear, that, under the influence of Mr. Daubeny, 
" fhe did not wifli her daughter to marry Mr. 
" Meade, But I by no means confider this as 
<c inconfiftent with Mrs. Meade's oath; and that 
" ^ T .r. Daubeny did endeavour to prevent the mar- 
" riage, by afperfions on Mr. Meade's character, 
" is proved, I think, beyond a poffibility of doubt. 
a And therefore, with the verdict of a jury againft 



[ ^3 1 



cc him, I cannot agree with the Bifliop of Lincoln 
* that he has in every refpecl acted with the 
" flricTteffc propriety. But on the other hand, 
<e with regard to Mr. and Mrs. Meade, their con- 
M duel: appears to me confiftent with the ftricleft 
« honour; and Mrs. Meade exhibits, in her con- 
" duct and her letters, fuch an inftance of filial 
" piety and Chriftian charity, as is, I think, rarely 
" to be met with." 

* The above is the opinion of a divine, a dig- 
c nitary in our church, who w T as educated at 
' Cambridge with the Bifliop of Lincoln, and 
' who never faw Mrs. Meade, nor Mr. Meade,, 
' until I laid before him the Biftiop's attack on 
' them both in forty-one pages. 

* George Sandford.'* 

If the Bifhop of Lincoln had entered on this 
affair unprejudiced as others did, he would have 
aiked Mr. Daubeny, " what do you mean by the 
" expreffions you ufed to Mifs Barnfton in June 
<c 1790, when me told you that her mother had 
<c confented to her marrying, and defired her to go 
" to perfuade you, c What do you think of my 
<c c wife and me ; are we to be Jacrificed?' What 
" do you mean by reminding Mifs Barnfton, in 
<c your letter in July 1790, 6 that fhe affured you 
■ € f abroad, that me would never facrifice you or 

9 Mr. Meade has the original of this letter. 



[ 154 ] 



** Betfey to any man whatever F What right had 
<c you to fuch a promife, fuppofing her to have 
" made fuch? What juft motive could have in- 
** duced you to affume the government of a 
cc woman, upwards of thirty years of age, whofe 
** father had left her independent, and whofe 
tc mother at all times declared her to be her own 
" miftrefs ? What pretence had you as a brother- 
" in-law, or any man, to procure promifes ineon- 
* 4 fiftent with her happinefs, and binding her for 
4C ever-, although if you really wimed to know her 
* c mother's opinion, ten days would have brought 
* c it to you ? But did not the line you purfued 
cc anfwer your purpofe better, by entangling her 
" with promifes, and then enforcing the obfer- 
<c vance of them by the fancYion of religion ?" 

The opinion of the Bifliop, " that it is probable 
(i Mr. Daubeny would have written home mildly 
" and impartially to Mifs Rarnfton's friends," is 
contradicted by fa£ts, and by the event, and by 
Mr. Daubeny himfelf. What he would have done> is 
proved by what he did! But his Lordfhip mould 
point out, why Mifs Barnfton mould have men* 
tioned any attachment of her's to her brother-in- 
]aw, if me did not in prudence or in her own 
judgment think proper to do fo. 

The Bifliop fays, " Indeed, Mr. and Mrs. Dau- 
" beny both repeatedly urged Mifs Barnfton to 
w write to her mother!" Indeed they did not I 



[ 155 ] 



And in this cafe Mr. Daubeny muft be the evi- 
dence againft his Lordfhip ; for in his letter to 
Mifs Barnfton, July 1790, he reminds her that at 
Spa, immediately after Mr. Meade's firft arrival, 
and when Mr. Daubeny fufpecled that an attach- 
ment might take place, " fhe made decided pro- 
<c mifes againft Mr. Meade he avers, " that his 
* c confidence in her was implicit, and his gratitude Jo 
Ci unbounded for the finking mark of her affeclion, 
Ci that (he could not fuppofe he could ever fee the 
<c fubjecl differently."* If he had then at the very 
outjet obtained promifes on which he imjdicitly 
depended^ and which he received with unbounded 
gratitude as a mark of affe&ion to bimfelf, on a fub- 
jecl on which he could never change his opinion ; 
how can he pretend to fay, or how can any man 
of common fenfe believe, " that he urged Mifs 
<c Barnfton repeatedly to write for her mother's 
is opinion ?" 

In the fame letter he again aflerts, that when 
they were returning to England from Italy, Mr. 
Meade having quitted the party, fhe affured him, 
" that though it might coft her a little, fhe would 
c * give up Mr. Meade, that (lie would never facri- 
** fice him\ or Betfey;" and he adds, « c this was the 

* The original is in Mr. Meade's pofTelEon. 

f Thefe are Mr. Daubeny's words; whether they were exactly 
Mifs Barnfton's words and meaning, is another queltion. 



[ i$6 ] 



ec firfi time you gave us to underftand you were to 
u deeply interefted in Mr. Meade." If then this 
was the firft time he heard it, will any one believe 
that he repeatedly urged her to write for her 
mother's opinion ; and on a matter to which he 
eonfefles fo much averfion, and which he could 
never fee differently ? 

His LordOiip fays, " Surely there could be no 
cc other caufe for her not writing to her mother, 
" but the belief that it would be difagreeable to 
" her/' Mrs. Meade's oath proved that that was 
not the caufe! It was. Mr. Daubeny (he was afraid 
of, not her mother. Her mother " left her to pleafe 
* £ herfelf" Mr. Daubeny bound her by p'omifes I 
She knew that if fhe had written to her mother 
from the Continent, the fame poft would proba- 
bly have conveyed letters from Mr. Daubeny to 
prejudice her mother and her friends againfl Mr. 
Meade. Nor did (lie fee occafion for writing j 
becaufe fhe was convinced that a word of obje&- 
ion would never have been furmifed againfl her 
choice by any of her family. But in fhort (lie did 
notwrite to her mother, becaufe the did not want 
to marry abroad. She did not choofe it. The 
Bifhop aiks, " Why fhe did not open the matter 
" to her mother immediately on her coming home?" 

If Mrs. Meade is to anfwer all the interroga- 
tories of a crofs-examiner, fhe would reply, u be- 
" caufe me thought proper to wait until Mr, 



[ 157 ] 



" Meade iliould come to make her an offer, 7 ' 
which he did within a fortnight after her arrival 
And fee are, as fhe flattered herfelf, of her mo- 
ther's confent, and unwilling to charge Mr. Dau- 
beny with deception, injuftice, or unfair influ- 
ence in obtaining promifes from her abroad, flie 
rather indulged the hope that when her happinefs 
was declared to be at (take, he might be prevailed 
on to give way, and that family friendfhip might 
be thus reflored. 

His Lordtliip fays, cc that Mrs. Meade held a 
u different language in her family, to what fee 
" fwore to." Vague as this charge is, it is 
founded in perverfion. The Bifhop mould have 
alked Mr. Daubeny, " to what part of her family? 
cc To thofe (he could truft in, or thofe me could 
" not?" If a perfon praftife againft my honour 
and happinefs, is referve towards him deceit P Is 
it any wonder, if a man want to break into my 
houfe, that I do not mew him my faftenings ? 
Mrs. Meade is ready now, as (lie was on former 
occafions, to acknowledge, that to thofe of her 
family under Mr. Daubeny's influence, fhe did 
not always difclofe the whole of her heart; becaufe 
pf what flic did difcover, Mr. Daubeny made vl 
bad ufe. She in faft adopted a line of conduct 
to which (lie uniformly adhered. Earner!: in en- 
deavours for family peace, and having no hope of 
it but by conciliatory meafures, (he determined 



C 158 } 



to fay at all tim°s every thing {he confcientioufly 
could to (often, but not aword if poffible to irritate. 
Of which temper advantage was often taken, and 
her expreftions of kindnefs turned againft herfelf. 
But the Bifhop, who was a ftranger to Mrs. Barn- 
fton's family, has little idea of the influence with 
which Mr. Daubeny reigned in it. 

The Bifhop, though a total ftranger to Mr. and 
Mrs. Meade and their connections, adopts the 
unfounded affertion, <c that they do all in their 
C6 power to injure the character of Mr. Daubeny 
For this affertion the Bifhop produces no autho- 
rity! But if there were truth in it, it would come 
with an ill grace from his Lordfhip, after the un- 
provoked invectives which are circulating under 
his name againft the characters of Mr. and Mrs. 
Meade, from whom he experienced nothing 
but liberality and candour. But they venture to 
cite his Lordfhip on this occafion, as evidence 
againft himfelf. He admits, (but with a very 
different view) the uniform difpofition to peace in 
both Mr. and Mrs. Meade. But his Lordfhip 
makes this acknowledgment only to ground a 
frefti attack on them. No wonder they mould 
defire peace, " for it is obvioufly the intereft, (fays 
<c the Bifhop) of the offending party to prefs for 
4C reconcilement and oblivion." The common 
opinion of men is fomewhat different ; it being 
ahnoft an axiom that the injurer never forgives* 



t 159 ] 

and that the wrong-doer is never at reft But if 
Mr. and Mrs. Meade had not fought* for family 
peace, what would a Chrillian Bifhop then have 
thought and faid of them ? 

The ftory which the Bimop recites from Mr. 
Daubeny, relative to a converfation with Mr. 
Meade at Spa about his brothers, is really fo per- 
verted as to affume a complexion totally different 
from what was intended. But fuch mifreprefen- 
tations have been not unfrequent with Mr. Meade's 
adverfary, and have fometimes been but too fuc- 
cefsful. The ftory is fo diftorted, that Mr. Meade 
may almoft deny it altogether ; although Mr. 
Daubeny afferts that with cold and prudent fore- 
iight " he noted down words," which a brother, 
in the clofeft bonds of friendship and confidence, 
fpoke to him without fufpicion or referve. What 
he fays of Mr. John Daubeny in particular, is 
mifreprefented with lingular want of generofity. 
He is now dead ; and Mr. Meade is ready to ac- 
knowledge that he experienced from him uni- 
formly brotherly kindnefs. And even after the 
unfortunate difference with the Rev. C. Daubeny 
terminated in a law-fuit, and when two or three 

* With this mode of i eafoning a fhrewd advocate might take up 
either fide of the queftion, and equally condem Mr. and Mrs^ 
Meade. If they are difpofed to peace — it is a fign of their being 
in the wrong. If they are averfe to peace — it is certain they are 
wrong. But the logician knows, that in the fpecies of fyllogifm 
called dilemma? " Argument atio nihil promt qua contradifioria 
* prbbat." 



[ 160 ] 



years feemed to have worn out the fharpnefs of 
its remembrance, Mr. John Daubeny having oc- 
cafion to write to Mr. Meade, did it with a kind- 
nefs and civility that were highly creditable to him, 
and which Mr. Meade felt and acknowledged. 

To the C£ Three Queftions" gravely put at the 
beginning of the Bifhop's fermon, Mr. Meade with 
equal gravity begs to jefer to the Bifhop himfelf 
for the anfwer. His Lordfhip can by this time 
give as fatisfa&ory a reply to them as any one. 
And in return Mr. Meade would a(k his Lord- 
fhip one queftion. " Is it confident with any 
<c principle of juftice, of candour, or of common 
" fenfe, that a perfon putting himfelf forward, and 
" pretending to be a Judge between two others, 
6S mould affociate with, and conftantly liften to, 
" and receive every impreffion which one party 
" chofe to give, and never think of feeing the 
" other, nor ever let him know the evidence on 
" which he was to be condemned; but on the 
" contrary, when informed that the fa&s he quoted 
<c could be fhewn to be falfe, and his authorities 
" could be all difproved, mould evade feeing the 
<e party who could fet him right; and in the mean 
" time fufFer his judgment to be circulated?" 

But from the Bifhop's opinion that Mrs. Meade's 
mother, fitters, and other relations, that is, " thofe 
" immediately conne&ed with Mr. Daubeny, 5 ' 
were required neither by religion nor morality to 



[ 161 ] 



live with Mr. and Mrs. Meade in terms of friend- 
(hip until retribution be made,* whether it can 
be eonfcientioufly made or not 5 Mr. Meade ap- 
peals to a divine of the old fchool, from whom 
Mrs. Meade quoted the following paffage into 
the lad letter fhe ever wrote to her mother: — <c If 
<c any one offend, the evil is with him, and he 
" has mod caufe to be troubled. Little injuries 
" fliould not move us; if great, there is more 
" magnanimity in forgiving; for it is the glory of 
" a man to pafs over a tranfgreffion. We muft 
" forgive one another, as God for Chrifl's fake 
" forgives us. But who is to go to be reconciled ; 
" the offender, or the offended ? Both ! that re- 
" concilement may be fure. If reftitution be firfl 
" required, if prefent fatisfac"h'on be demanded, we 
" mould rather chide our unbelieving hearts that 
tc cannot wait for that day when it will be better 
" for the offended, and worfe for the offender, if 

* The Bilhop feems afraid to ftate the queftian fairly. He feems 
to feel certain doubts. Therefore he does not pronounce " that 
" religion and morality juliify the everlafting feparation of a parent 
"from her child, of fiflers from afifter but he includes all under 
the fweeping expreffion of " thofe immediately connected with 
H Mr. Daubeny are neither required by religion or morality to Jive 
" with Mr. and Mrs. Meade in terms of friendfhip until, &c." Does 
his L^dfhip mean roundly to fay, " that it is juftifiable to order 
(< fervants to put away children from their grandmother's doors^ 
(( and to refufe a daughter admittance into her mother's houfe, where 
" fhe goes with chriftian folicitations for reconcilement and love. ?} *- 
for this is the way the queftion mould be ftated. 

M 



[ m ] 



€C it be not done before. " And if on fo impor" 
tant a fubjeft as Chriftian Charity, Mr. Meade 
ventures to differ from a bifliop,* he muft plead 
impreffions early imbibed from venerable divines 
now in their graves ; one of whom/j* perfuaded 
that on this very point Mrs. Barnfton was miftaken 
when {he quoted her Bible,wrote to her, " that 
* c fhe ufed a commentator very different from his." 
And indeed, under any other interpretation of 
fcripture than the above, Mr. Meade profefTes 
himfelf incompetent to underftand the chriftian 
do£trine and precept of charity, or to explain the 
meaning of St. Paul in the laft verfes of the 12th 
Epiftle to the Romans, and 3d to the Coloffians. 

The reader, after perufing this pamphlet, which 
is in fa& a vindication of the laws, as well as of 
individuals, will judge whetherthere can be traced 
in it " felf-deception," '* fophiflical reafoning," 

* In differing on this fubject from the Bifhop of Lincoln, and 
Archdeacon Daubeny, Mr. Meade has the fatisfa&ion of finding 
himfelf fupported by every clergyman, and every confiderate lay- 
man, whom he knows. He finds that the doctrine of his opponents 
is not only new to him, but that the terms made ufe of are unintel- 
ligible. In thofe excellent letters quoted in the Appendix, Mr. 
Stevens having endeavoured, with chriftian perfuafion, to prevail on 
Mr. Daubeny " to fuffer the children and grand-children of Mrs, 
" Barnfton to afTemble round the good old lady, and with a kifs 
" of love to bury every thing in oblivion Mr. Daubeny wrote 
in repiy that fuch conducl would not be " chriftian charity," but 
** chriftian folly I" What thefe laft words import, Mr. Daubeny an4 
his friends muft explain ! 

f Archdeacon Coham t 



I 163 ] 

" deceitful pra&ices," " lying/' c< falfe-fwearing,' ' 
" perjury," &c. ; for thefe are among the intem- 
perate expreffions which the Bifhop of Lincoln 
mifapplies to Mr. and Mrs. Meade. His Lordfhip 
would even be thought to feel tendernefs for thofe 
.whom he would thus brand with everlafting in- 
famy, calling on them to confefs all this compli- 
cated depravity, as a means " of reconciliation 
c c honourable to both parties." The world muft 
judge on which fide there is fophiftry ! 

His Lordfhip having conveyed to Mr. Meade 
the above catalogue of black accufations, apolo- 
gizes, with an appearance of ferioufnefs, (which 
Mr. Meade confidered as irony) for not fending 
this infult to him fooner ; his Lordfhip even gravely 
ex pre fling " his farrow that he was not able to 
" do it before." And his excufe for this attack 
on the honour of Mr. Meade's family is a Angular 
one, viz. that the latter, with confidence in his 
own caufe, and with too unfufpe&ing liberality 
towards a ftranger, had candidly trujied his Lord- 
fhip with papers. " For (to ufe the Bifhop's 
" words*) you had full power to withhold your 
" papers; and as you communicated them to me 
cc immediately, and without any objection, I muft 
" confideryou asvoluntarilyf fending them tome." 

* In a letter, O&ober 22, 1805. 
t The Bifhop fhould have ftated that Mr. Meade fent his papers 
not fp taneoujly, bat that on application from his Lordfhip he volun* 
#rily- complied with what he conceived to be his Lordfhip's wifheq, 

M 2 



[ m ] 



But fuppofing this to be correctly ftated, did not 
Mr. Meade deferve at leafl the return of knowing: 
that his Lordfhip propofed to re-judge the trial 
and the whole caufe, on fuch papers as Mr. 
Meade might fend him? Was Mr. Meade not 
entitled to the juflice, if not to the civility, of an 
enquiry, whether the anecdotes, and ftofies, and 
reprefentations of an opponent were admitted, or 
could be difproved ? The world muft judge, whe- 
ther it is doing as a man would be done by, to 
circulate, in public and private, fuch an attack as 
the Bifhop's, on the grounds which his Lordfhip 
adopted; endeavouring even to poifon the public 
mindi by introducing the fubjecl: flyly, and as it 
were obiter ^ into refpe&able and popular publi- 
cations of a literary kind, and unfuitable to the 
difcuffion of perfonal quarrels. If the characters 
of perfons, even of perfons whom the laws of the 
land have publicly protected, are to be thus at 
the mercy of an individual, who will venture to 
truft even a letter out of his hands? 

Mr. Meade has had his conflict with Mr. Dau- 
beny ; and the laws have publicly pronounced 
upon it. 

After a lapfe of thirteen years, the Bifhop of 
Lincoln has volunteered as a champion for Mr, 
Daubeny in the fame caufe. How his Lordfhip 
has fucceeded in his part of the ftruggle, the world 
will judge. 



[ 165 ] 



And now having gone through the Bifhop's 
paper, Mr. Meade will beg leave to apply to his 
Lordfhip his own words. " It requires great 
" firmnefs of mind to make confeffions ; and that 
<c firmnefs can be derived only from thisconfider- 
<c ation, that however humiliating confeffion may 
" be thought in this world, it will certainly be 
<c profitable in the next. Let the Bifhop confider 
ce that he has done his utmoft to deprive an inno- 
" cent woman of her character. She fmcerely 
<£ forgives him, as achriftian; and me hopes that 
<c his Lordlhip, being undeceived, has magnani- 
u mity and juflice enough to confefs it." 

Mr. Meade having finifhed his reply to the 
Bifhop of Lincoln, and having ihewn the preju- 
dices with which his Lordfhip began the bufinefs, 
the unfair manner in which he conduced it, and 
the uncharitable conclufions deduced and propa- 
gated from it, rauft here take leave to make fome 
general remarks on his Lordfhip's behaviour. 

And it is in the firft place to be obferved, that 
his Lordfhip, having taken upon him an office, for 
which it is prefumed he had Mr. Daubeny's vote 5 
lays down, more than once, canons of evidence. 
Some material rules, however, he has overlooked ; 
as that ec to contradict the oath of a competent wit- 



[ 166 ] 



cc nefs, the private ajfertion of any perfon, much 
" Iefs of an interefted party, is not confidered as 
" authority. 

<c Secondly, That the beft evidence, of which a 
* c cafe is capable, is always required. 

" Thirdly, That perfons who were able, and 
" were fummoned, to attend at a trial, and did 
" not venture to do fo, are not permitted to ftig- 
* c matize a judgment. 

" And, fourthly, That partizans, if liftened to 
" at all, mould be heard with caution, and never 
€C implicitly relied on." 

If thefe rules were not obferved, there would 
be no prote&ion in the laws. 

The Bifhop complains that Mr. Meade did not 
produce original documents ; but his Lordfliip is 
miftaken. Mr. Meade fent him fuch original 
papers, as in his own judgment were neceflary; 
and to fave trouble, he referred to other papers, 
and to perfons, as he does in this pamphlet; Mr. 
Meade conceiving it to be his Lordfhip's duty to 
wait on him, or on thofe perfons to whom he 
referred, if it mould be required to compare re- 
ferences with originals. But his Lordfliip never 
expreffed for what purpofe,or with what views, he 
was to perufe Mr. Meade's papers, nor hinted to 
Mr. Meade that he would wifh for any other do- 
cuments than thofe he had. The intimation that 
his Lordihip had feen all Mr. Daubeny's papers, 



[ 167 ] 



was too vague for Mr. Meade to meet every in- 
vention of an a&ive mind. Mr. Meade fent to 
the Bifhop fuch papers as he conceived would 
be fufficient to fatisfy him, becaufe they had fatis- 
fled every one elfe ; and he promifed to Jupply^him 
with any farther information, if he fhould wifli for 
more. But Mr. Meade little expelled that his 
character mould, without any notice, be fet afloat 
in the world by an unexampled torrent of Clock- 
ing invectives, poured out againfl himfelf and his 
wife, in his Lordfhip's name; for, to ufe the words 
of the Bifhop of Durham, to whom Mr. Daubeny 
had more than once applied, " he could not think 
" that any bifhop, or any man, would take upon 
" himfelf the re-judging a caufe that had been 
" already decided at law. 5 ' And Mr. Meade, in 
the papers which he conveyed to the Bifhop of 
Lincoln, having exprefsly told him fo, did not 
fend a fingle document refpecling the trial! But 
his Lordfliip taking upon himfelf to decide on the 
trial, without any legal means of judging; and on 
Mrs. Meade's heart and intentions, without ever 
feeing her, endeavours to invalidate by perverted 
or mirlaken fcraps of letters, the teftimony of an 
uncontradicted oath. And although his attention 
was by Mr. Meade's papers directed to the point, 
he will not fuffer his eye to glance towards any of 
the motives that might have actuated Mr. Dau- 
beny. He fpeaks decifively on a point which can 



[ 168 ] 



be known only to God ; and will not admit even 
the fuppolition of Mr. Daubeny's influence in the 
Barnfton family, of which there is pofitive proof. 

Inftead of putting thofe queftions to Mrs. 
Meade at the end of his philippic, would it not 
have been more candid in the Biftiop to have 
alked himfelf, cc Is it confiftent with any principle 
f e of juftice, to make bold aifertions to the injury 
Cf of another's good name, without feeing the 
" accufed, as I have feen the accufer? Is it doing 
6e as I would be done by, to adopt facts, however 
" plaufible, from one party, without enquiring 
cc whether the other party could difprove them?" 

Thefe are plain queftions: Will the Bifhop 
be able to juftify his conduct by the anfvver? 

And before he ventured to decide againft a ver- 
dict, his Lordfhip might have put fome relevant 
queftions to Mr. Daubeny. As, " If you owed it to 
<c the church, as you fay, and to your own family, to 
ce defend your character, why did you not do it? 
cc If you were really unprepared for Mifs Barn- 
<c fton's evidence, why did you not move for a 
" new trial, when you had heard that evidence ? If 
" you thought it your duty, as a good citizen, to 
tc fubmit to a verdicl:, why have you without 
<c ceaftng oppofed it ? If you publifh to the 
<c world (hocking charges againft Mrs. Meade, 
" why did you not produce them where they 
" might have been examined?" And, " if you 



I 169 ] 

c< you are ftriving to deftroy her character, bow 
" can you affect tendernefs* for her.'' His Lord- 
flii p might alfo have added, " What was the rea- 
" fon, that after Mrs. Barnflon had been made 
4< ufe of to threaten that fhe was, determined to go 
" into Court to oppofe her daughter, what was 
f* the reafon, that when Mr. Meade's attorney 
* c ferved her with a fubpoena, (lie cried out in 
" terror to be let off; and that Mr. Meade, in- 
* c formed of her dillrefs, fent her a meffage, thro' 
* her lifter Mrs. Ravenhill, that, whatever might 
" be the inconvenience to him and his caufe, he 
?! would not infift on her appearing in Court. "f 

Inftead of fuch obvious enquiries, his Lordfliip 
makes affertions which may fuit any caufe, and 
talks with moil folemnity when his own is weak- 
ell. In order to give weight to a very erroneous 

* The reader will recollect that Mr. Daubeny, who labours to 
brand Mrs. Meade with infamy, avers that he bore public difgrace 
with the lofs of his money, rather than defend himfelf at the ex- 
pence of wounding her character in court ; yet his behaviour to her 
in court was fo unfeeling, that he was ordered by Lord Kenyon 
to retire from it. And with all his excefs of charity to her, he ftill 
pronounced it to be chrifiian folly to admit of general oblivion and 
forgivenefs. 

f It was againft the opinion of Dr. Blayney that Mr. Meade did 
not Infift on Mrs. Barnfton's attending in Court. The Doctor, as 
well as Mr. Meade, was convinced that her evidence, if given on 
•atb, muft be important for Mr. Meade's caufe. See Dr. Blayney's 
letter already printed. Mr. Meade difpenfed with Mrs. Raven- 
hill's attendance at the fame time, and received her thanks for the 
indulgence. But his indulgence to Mrs. Barnfton is turned againft 
himfelf. ... 



[ 170 ] 

and unnatural paper, reflecting on Mrs. Meade, 
he gravely avers, i( that it was dated the nth of 
" June 1 792, and fignedby Mrs. Barnfton herfelf."J 

In defcribing Mrs. Meade's interview with her 
mother, his Lordlhip relates every thing for one 
fide, not a word on the other. He ftates thus: 
6c Mr. Daubeny folemnly fays,' 1 " Mr. Daubeny fo- 
" lemnly declares, fo and fo." 6C Mr. Daubeny Jent 
" an account to all the branches of the family " 6C In- 
" deed! Mr. and Mrs. Daubeny did, fo and fo/' 
" The following is Mr, Daubeny s account " which 
is related in full. iC Mrs. Meade gave a different 
" account;' 9 but not a word of it is mentioned. 
" To which the following anfwer was given" all of 
which is recited. 

Such is the ftyle and mode of arguing for one 
party. On the other fide, Mrs. Meade is convi&ed, 
" becaufe Mr. Daubeny and his party aver, that 
cc Mrs. Meade to this did not fay any thing " that 

% The Bifhop makes great parade about the evidence of two or 
three papers figned by old people, who, for aught his Lordfhip 
knew, were misinformed, or dependent, or frightened. Did he 
afk, whether the papers were verified on oath? Whether thofe that 
figned them, firft even read them by themfelves ? Whether they 
fairly enquired of unbiafTed people into the truth of what they were 
called on to fign ? Has it appeared on oath, that thofe who compofed 
the papers were not interefted parties or partizans ? Has there been a 
crofs-examination, or any examination ? Or has the Bifhop afcribed 
a legal folemnity to papers which were deficient in every legal cha- 
racter ? And by fuch documents would he overturn the moft folemn 
idepifions of law? But after all, are the papers, even fuch as they 
are, any thing to the main queftions? 



[ 171 ] 



€<r Mrs. Meade gave no anfwer" "that Mrs. Meads 
" could not deny" &c. 

When Mrs. Meade's chara&er and conduct 
from her childhood are fuggefted as alone argu- 
ments againft odious charges, " her character is 
Ci nothing to the purpofe," his Lordfhip fays; 
forgetting that he quoted, as an argument againft 
her, the letter of a gentleman who never faw her; 
and that he had quoted as arguments for Mr. 
Daubeny, " that the late Archbifhop of Canter- 
c< bury approved of his nomination to the New- 
" Church ; that the Bifhop of Salisbury made him 
" an archdeacon; that Biihop Mofs thought well 
" of him ; and that the Bifhop of Durham* under- 
<c ftood from thofe that knew him, that he was 
" above cenfure and fufpicion." 

That thefe venerable and truly refpeclable 
Bifhops did honour to any man, of whom ihey 
thought well, is unqueftionable ; and their notice 
of Mr. Daubeny is one, among many weighty 
reafons, for Mr. Meade's wifhing that this whole 
affair mould have funk into oblivion. But the 
Bifhop of Lincoln has forced it into notice ; and 
whether he has ferved the caufe of his friend, or 
the caufe of religion, the world mult now judge. 

If anecdotes and llories recited on the authority 
of Mr. Daubeny fliall appear to the reader abfo- 

* See, in the Appendix, the Biihop of Lincoln's correfpondence 
with Mr. Meade. 



[ 172 ] 



lately unfounded, what will be thought of Mr. 
Daubeny's credit as an accufer? And if the 
Bifliop of Lincoln cannot deny that he has mani- 
feftly mifi eprefented the fenfe of a paper, which 
Mr. Meade in candour and confidence trufted 
to him on his own application, what will be 
thought of his Lordfhip's impartiality as a judge 
in this cafe ? 

When affertions are made refpecting Mr. Saw- 
bridge,* which are proved not to be founded in 
fa&, the Bifhop fays nothing! When Mr. Dau- 
beny ventures to quote Admiral Stanhope to a 
fact, which the Admiral declares not to be founded 
in truth, his Lordfhip thinks it unneceflfary to 
enquire. When it is afferted that " Bifhop Mofs 
* f pronounced Mrs. Meade perjured," and Mr. 
Meade proves the affertion falfe; the Bifliop 
of Lincoln fays only, that Bifliop Mofs thought 
well of Mr. Daubeny and his caufe. When 
ftories are recited by the Bifliop of Lincoln him- 
felf, and circulated by his immediate family, tend^ 
ing to injure the character of Mrs. Meade, and 
thefe ftories are proved to be utterly without foun- 
dation ; his Lordfliip again only fays, that they 
are nothing to other points. And when his own 
palpable mifreprefentations are pointed out^to 

* See inftances in Mr. Meade's firll pamphlet, page io5, and in 
the Bifhop's paper in the Appendix. 



[ 173 ] 



him, fo far is he from apologifing, that he fhifts 
his ground, and ftates his opinion, that Mr. Meade 
muft be wrong either way. Yet his Lordlhip 
continues faying, " if you prove l am miftaken in 
*f any point, I will give it up."f 

Of this however others will judge, when they 
are informed that Mr. Meade referred his Lord- 
fhip to the Rev. Mr. Sawbridge, who can contra- 
dict the alfertions refpe&ing him 5 — to Admiral 
Stanhope, who will deny what is faid of him; — 
to the Rev. Dr. Mofs's letter for his father, to 
the meffage brought by Archdeacon Barker to 
Dr. Blayney from Dr. Mofs, and to Bifhbp Mofs's 
own letter, to difprove the fa& alferted of his 
Lordmip; — to a coachmaker, who can contradift 
another; — to Mr. Goddard's letters, which are 
fufficient to difprove another; — and to the paper 
which his Lordfliip mifreprefented, to decide 
againft himfelf in that inftance. 

The letters of approbation which the Bifhop 
of Lincoln quotes as written to himfelf, or to Mr. 
Daubeny, are anfwers to their own letters, which 
conveyed their own accounts-, and if they had added 
to their account, " that Mrs. Meade had commit- 
" ted murder," it would only have increafed the 
horror intended to be excited. But in the name 

f Is not this like the man in the play, who fays, " Let me hear 
" your reafons — I love to hear reafons when my mind is made up 9 
" for then they can dp no hgrm. ,J 



E 174 ] 



of common-fenfe and juftice, what have thefe 
letters to do with the argument ? 

His Lordfhip fays, " that one of the parties 
* muft be guilty!" Lord Kenyon and a fpecial 
Jury thought fo too ! And as to reparation, 
which his Lord (hip fays " is due to the injured 
cc party," the law, confidering Mr. Meade as 
the injured party, fatisfied him by protecting his 
character, which was all the reparation he defired. 

Mr. Daubeny told Mrs. Meade in one of his 
letters, (it isprefumed, to make the family believe 
that the penalty he had paid remained inher hands, 
and that the various expences of the fuit did not 
fwallow it up) he told her, " that he hoped the atrfe 
ec of ill-gotten riches would not fooner or later 
* c reft on her and her children." But he knows 
row at leaft, that (he is effectually fecured from 
the danger of that curfel 

The Bifttop, having pretty plainly afcribed to 
Mrs. Meade a variety of wickednefs, charitably 
finds out a motive for her, viz. cc that fhe fought 
" to give a criminal colour to innocent words, in 
" order publicly to convict an old friend and 
46 favourite in a Court of Law, and to obtain 
ic money, from her brother-in-law, the hufband of 
" her beloved fitter!! !" 

Mr. Meade thinks it unnecelfary to take farther 
notice of this difcovery of the Biftiop, than merely 
to relate it. On the motives of people Mr* 



[ 175 ] 



Meade does not venture to pronounce; they 
are often concealed in the recefles of the heart* 
and are inscrutable by men. But when the con- 
duct of perfons is open to great latitude of con- 
ftruction, fufpicions will arife ; and Mr. Meade has 
had his. But when he fimply relates fa£ts, and 
that only when neceffity calls for it, no one has a 
right to complain. An erroneous account how- 
ever being ftated of Mrs. Meade's fortune, for an 
obvious purpofe conne&ed with this fubje£t, Mr. 
Meade begs leave to fay, that the united fortunes 
of Mrs. Barnfton, and her two (then) unmarried 
daughters, Mrs. M. Barnfton and the prefent 
Mrs Meade, were not lefs than 36,000!. in pof- 
feffion and reverfion. Mrs. M. Barnfton being 
very unlikely to marry, if Mrs. Meade could have 
been induced to remain fingle alfo, to whom would 
all this money and the favings of it go? There 
was no brother, nor any fifter, but Mrs. Daubeny 
and Mrs. Sikes ! At the fame time Mr. Meade 
delires it to be underftood, that he never did pro- 
nounce on the motives of people, either principals 
or agents, whether they were altogether, or in 
part, pecuniary, or otherwife. 

Of the difintereftednefs of Mifs Barnfton in 
particular, and of all her family, to Mr. Daubeny, 
inftances in abundance may be found ; of Mr. 
Daubeny's no traces are known to Mr. Meade, 



[ 176 J 



By the kindnefs of the late Mr. Barnfton, Mr. 
Daubeny got a very large fortnne with his wife; 
for though it was left to her in her cradle by a 
friend of her father, yet a power was given to 
him of withholding it, if fhe did not obtain 
his confent in her choice of a hufband. Mr. 
Daubeny obtained it, and received her fortune: 
and Mr. Barnfton dying eight years afterwards, 
made him one of his three executors, with Mr„ 
Sikes his other fon-in-law, and Mr. Sawbridge 
the brother of Mrs. Barnfton. The latter declined 
string; and Mr. Sikes left bufmefs chiefly to Mr. 
Daubeny, who of courfe proved and undertook 
to execute the will. 

Mr. Barnfton appointed his three unprovided 
daughters his refiduary legatees, intending thus to 
give them the largeft mare of his fortune, and 
limiting his bequeft to Mr. and Mrs. Daubeny 
to nool. in hand, and 5000I. B. L. A. on the 
death of Mrs. Barnfton. And this he did, be- 
eaufe Mrs, Daubeny's fortune was more than dou- 
ble that of her fitters. But fcarcely was their 
father dead, when the daughters fhewed their 
difinterefted refpeft for Mr. Daubeny, by con- 
ferring to fet afide, in his favour, their father's 
will. None was fo forward to gratify him as 
Mifs Barnfton, the prefent Mrs. Meade, to whom 
his wifties were always as a law. Without 
knowing or inquiring into the value of what they 



[ m 3 



gave, they thus admitted Mr. Daubeny to aft 
equal fhare with themfelves, of a confiderable 
refiduum. And a more difinterefted teftimony of 
regard and confidence could not be given, becaufe 
it was not only yielding up a large part of their 
fortune, but it was unfettling the will of a beloved 
father, whofe conduct appeared fo judicious as 
well as affectionate, and for whofe memory Mr. 
Daubeny alfo profeffed the higheft and mod un„ 
bounded veneration.* Mrs. Barnfton herfelf, 
whofe reluctances were faid to have been at firft 
very great, yielded at length to the arrangement 
that was made, and even confented to receive 
for her life, in addition to 8ool. per annum left 
to her by Mr. Barnfton, iool. a year more, to 
be taken from the refiduary eftate of the three 
daughters. But fhe declared that flie did not 
want it j and that it would come to the fame thing 

* Mr. Meade is aware that Mr. Daubeny had reafons to affign 
for this alteration of Mr. Barnfton's will; and it is not intended here 
to examine thofe reafons. But whether they were juft or not, Mr. 
Meade's argument is not alfeded. Whether Mr. Daubeny had, 
in legal ftrictnefs, a claim to fomewhat more than Mr. Barnfton's 
will gave to him; or whether that will had given him to the full 
amount of what he could by any plea lay claim to ; or whether 
the alteration of the will gave him two or three times as much as 
he could by any pretence claim; the difintereftednefs of the Barnfton 
family was the fame. They neither faw nor defired any accounts; 
they knew not, nor enquired into, what they gave ; but with confi- 
dence and generofity they admitted Mr. Daubeny into an equal 
(hare with themfelves of a confiderable property of unknown value I 

N 



[ 178 ] 



in the end, for that her daughters would have it 
after her death. 

If Mrs. Meade expected a child's fhare of what 
her mother had to leave, me and others thought 
me had good reafons for fuch expectations. But 
on her mother's death, me learned that a new 
will had been made in her 85th year, by which 
about 1600I. or 1700I. was left to Mrs. M. 
Barnfton; to Mrs. Sikes, the fame; to Mr. and 
Mrs. Daubeny about 3000I.; and to Mrs. Meade, 
nothing. A trifle, under iool. for each, was left 
k trufl for Mrs. Meade's four children, but rather, 
as it fhould feem, to convey infult than benefit; 
neither principal nor intereft being payable for 
fixteen years; the children having only a contin- 
gent intereft in this trifle, with a reverfion to Mrs. 
M. Barnfton, Mrs. Sikes, and Mrs. Daubeny; and 
during the interval of fixteen years Mr. Daubeny 
and another gentleman being made the managers 
and truftees for them ! # 

The pretence for all this was to perform an 
act of retributive jujiice to Mr. Daubeny, for cofts 
and damages under an unfavourable verdict. Mrs. 
Barnfton at eighty-four conceiving herfelf compe- 
tent to judge of retributive juftice! calculating 
and arranging like a folicitcr! when about the 
fame time Mrs. Meade was given to underftand 

* Vide in Doclors'-Commons the will of Mrs. Mary Barnfton, 
of March, 1804* 



[ 179 3 



that her mother was too old even to receive 
letters from her daughter;* and Mr. Daubeny 
was declared to be the perfon to whom me rauft 
in future addrefs whatever fhe might have to fay- 
to her mother! 

It was furely not neceffary, even to fuck pecu- 
niary juftice, that a feeble poor old lady 5 at that 
age, mould leave a (hocking record againft her 
own child, unexampled in Doclors'-Commons, by 
voluminous and unnatural charges in her will. 
Thus, after having deprived her daughter and her 
children of their mare of her fortune, endeavour- 
ing alfo to ftrip them for ever of their reputation 
and honour, even after fhe had given to them her 
blefjing, or, as it is called, ker forg'wenefi. 

This laft wound has been indeed the fevereft 
which could be given to Mrs. Meade; and for 
what purpofe it was inflicted, but to gratify fpleen 
or vengeance,*)- is inconceivable. Even to defend 
herfelf is a painful neceffity; her furprife being 
equal to her grief at this unexpected blow from 
a mother, who, when left to herfelf, had ever 
been the moft indulgent as well as the moft 
affectionate to her! And as to the pecuniary 
difpofition in Mrs. Barnfton's will, if the object 

* See letter from Mrs. M. Barnfton to Mrs. Meade, already 
quoted. 

f This is the will, at the reading of which Mr. Daubeny invited 
Mrs. Meade to be prefent at his houfe ! 

N 2 



[ 180 ] 



were really what it profeffes, " to make compen- 
c< fation to Mr. Daubeny," why did not the remain^ 
der of Mrs. Meade's (hare, after fatisfy ing him, 
go to Mrs. Meade herfeif ? Bat Mrs. Meade, ftill 
regardlefs of pecuniary injuries, wrote again to 
her fillers, requeuing general reconcilement and 
mutual oblivion; but her offers were again re- 
jected. The world will judge whether (he mewed 
that interefted difpofition, which the Bifhop as- 
cribes to her, and will perhaps be not fo much at 
a lofs as his Lordfliip is to find out the motives 
of the parties. 

Mrs. Meade acknowledges that me did not 
imagine that any delufion in her mother could 
have induced her to carry refentments beyond 
the grave, either by cruel insinuations in her will 
againft herfeif, or by depriving her and her child- 
ren of the portion of her fortune, to which Mrs. 
Meade knew that truth, and juftice, and nature 
gave her fair claims. Circumftances alfo tended 
to confirm this perfuaiion; for her mother had 
told her fitter Mrs. Ravenhill, about eight or ten 
years before, that fiie had made her will at that 
time, and hoped that (lie had not forgotten one of 
her relations, and that her will at lead would 
fatisfy all parties. 

It was about the fame time alfo, that Mr. John 
Daubeny, being on a vifit in Bath, at his brother's, 
(Rev. C. Daubeny) and having called on Mrs. 



[ m ] 



Lyte, mentioned, " that although Mrs. Barnfton 
" could not, in juftice to his brother, fee her 
<c daughter Meade, yet that me entirely forgave 
<c her; as would appear in her will, which was 
* c made, and which gave to Mrs. Meade an equal 
<c fliare of her fortune with her fitters."* 

It was alfo much about the fame time that 
Mrs. Meade, hearing in Oxford that her mother 
was very ill, haftened to Bath, and wrote to her 
filler, entreating permiffion to throw herfelf at 
her mother's feet, if but for one minute of her 
life, which was refufed ; her filler telling her 9 
" that her mother was recovered; and that fhe 
" perfeclly forgave her, hoping in her illnefs that 
* £ it would not be imputed to her that fhe did 
€S not fee her." On every occalion Mrs. Barnfton 
was faid to have forgiven her daughter, but could 
not fee her. And no parent could fhew more 
tendernefs on the only occafion, when (Mr. Dau- 
beny being at a diftance) fhe faw Mrs. Meade's 
children. Nor could any one exprefs more 
kindly intereft than (lie did, when Mrs. T. Forfter 
called on her, and faid flie was juft come from 
fpending a few days with Mrs. Meade, the good 

* Mrs. Lyte naturally mentioned with pleafure this circumftance 
to Mrs. Meade at the time ; fhe not only thought that it would 
gratify her, but that probably Mr. J. Daubeny wifhed her to do £o 9 
&s fli :w ng that his brother either had not influence, or did not exert 
it againft her. 



[ 182 ] 



old lady earneftly enquiring about her and her 
children, and even kindly about Mr. Meade's 
health. It was therefore with much furprife that 
Mrs. Meade learned, after her mother's death, 
that a new will had been figned by her, in her 
84th or 85th year, of five folio pages; full of cal- 
culations and nice details, four-fifths of the will 
being on the fubject of that daughter to whom 
nothing was left ; even her (hare of a little eftate 
in Berkfhire being devifed away from her, altho* 
her mother had no dominion over it ; and what 
■was molt unkind of all, charges equally unjuft 
and unneceffary being introduced into this will, 
as records which could never be revoked, how- 
ever the facls may be afterwards explained or 
difproved. 

No notice was taken in this will of Mrs. Barn- 
fton's only brother, nor of her only fifter, nor of 
any of her nephews or nieces, notwithstanding 
what (he had allured her fifter eight or ten years 
before. What the caufe of this was, is now 3 
fubjecT: of mere conjecture only. They were cer- 
tainly all known to be much attached to Mrs, 
Meade, and fo they had always been. 

The Bifhop is pleafed to fay, " that fome who 
<c have read Mr. Meade's papers, have thought 
" favourably of him:" But his Lordfhip mould 
rather in candour have pointed out one individual 



[ 183 ] 



inftance of any man who had heard both fides, 
and was not favourable to Mr. Meade. 

His Lordftiip, applying Mr. Meade's own ex- 
preffions againft him, fays, " that he keeps out of 
" fight the principal features, and dwells on 
" others that are lefs fo." The Bidiop has pro- 
duced no authority for this affertion, and Mr. 
Meade again ventures to defy him to prove it in 
any inftance. The facl applies to Mr. Meade's 
opponents, not to him. Dr. Blayney, in his print- 
ed account of his negociation for an amicable 
arbitration, terms Mr. Daubeny's conduct " a dex- 
cc trous piece of legerdemain''' The Bifhop himfelf 
keeps out of fight that the trial was for flander, * 

* Mr. Meade's motive for going into a court of law was purely to 
protect his character from flander; and his friends, his folicitor, and 
his counfel knew it. But thefe laft, inftantly perceiving the object and 
effect of the flander, thought it right to ftate them in the Declara- 
tion. Mr. Meade obtained all that engaged his folicitude, when he 
had protected his character by a verdict of his country. 

The excufes fet up for his opponent are of little concern to him. 
Of what value is the pretence that the marriage was not prevented 
or delayed by the flander ? If the intention be manifeft, is calumny 
the lefs reprehenfible, becaufe the full intent of it might not have 
been effected ? But in this cafe it is prefumed that the effect of hav- 
ing prevented a marriage was not lefs manifeft than the intention. 
" The argument that flander did not affect Mrs. Meade's conduct, 
becaufe fhe had previoufly refolved not to act againft her mother's 
wifhes, is weak as it is unfounded. Mrs. Meade did once fo re- 
folve, and fincerely expreffed fuch refolution with as much piety 
and duty as ever a daughter felt. But is there not a condition im- 
plied in every fuch refolution ? Can no circumftance arife, which 
will juft :y a change of fentiment? Are not common juftice an4 
affection due to a daughter? Mrs. Meade always wrote and fpoke 



C 184 ] 

and the verdicl for flander, as well as for the lofs 
of marriage; that is, for having prevented a 
marriage until the trial. He dwells on promifes 
made to Mr, Daubeny, but keeps out of fight the 
manner in which they were obtained. He refts 
on the irritation in Mrs. Barnfton's mind ; but 
fuppreffes the means by which it was excited. 
He fpeaks of the family difliking Mr. Meade ; 
but he conceals their attachment to him previous 
to their being praclifed upon $ and in defcribing 

in the momentary fullnefs of a heart impreffed with the warmeft 
fenfe of filial duty for a parent, whom me believed that no delufion 
or influence could feduce into a forgetfulnefs of maternal affection : 
for as me wrote to her mother in October, 1790, (fee page 64) " me 
" trufled me mould always be able to fubfcribe herfelf the moft 
" dutiful, as no earthly confiderations could ever make her other- 
8< wife than her moft affectionate, daughter But fuppofe a mo- 
ther to have declared her own fentiments clearly to her daughter, 
and afterwards to fall under fubjection to the caprice or tyranny 
of another ! Suppofe this aged mother to be under the influence of 
an interested perfon, and unjuftly and irrationally to revoke a con* 
ient me had once given to her daughter's plans of happinefs, and 
even tofet herfelf with feverity againft them; liftening only to an 
enemy, rejecting all reafon and conlideration for her child, and at 
length even (hutting her doors againft her, for performing an una- 
voidable act of juftice and duty: Will any one fay that a daughter is 
to confider fuch conduct as expreffive of her mother's real wifhes 
and fentiments? or will it be infilled on, that a woman paft thirty, 
whom her father had thought fit to render independent, ought not, 
under fuch circumftances, to think for her own happinefs ? Mrs. 
Meade's temperate and uninfluenced friends and relations not only 
juftified, but guided her conduct; the Rev. Dr. Blayney conveyed 
to her his opinion as a divine, as a father, and as a moralift, in an 
admirable paper written exprefsly on this occafion, after taking 3 
view of the whole circumftances. 



[ 185 ] 



the family, he always reprefents a part for the 
whole ! 

But it is endlefs to point out the evafions and 
the quibbles by which every argument is fup- 
ported, and which induced a worthy and fenfible 
man to fay, that fince he had read the Bimop's 
papers he had a worfe opinion than ever of the 
caufe his Lordfliip fupported. 

The Bifliop mentions Mrs. Meade's aunt, as if 
he would have her thought to be an evidence 
againft her niece; and he quotes the good old 
lady, only as having figned a paper which was 
brought to her for the purpofe, and which paper 
is in fa& a pompous nothing; although , his Lordfliip 
gives himfelf the pains to recite it in full. This 
paper only proves that me did not hear from Mr- 
Daubeny particular fafts, which no one ever faid 
fhe did hear from him; no mention having been 
made of the principal or agent who communi- 
cated to her the information fhe received. 

That Mrs. Ravenhill and her family heard ca- 
lumny from fome one, is certain ; otherwife fhe 
would not have faid to Mifs Barnfton, " that 
t( Mr. Meade was either a very bad or a very 
" injured rnan." Nor would her fon, the Rev. 
Mr. Ravenhill, u have fo earneflly cautioned Mifs 
" Barnfton againft him on the will bujinejs " Nor 
would Mifs Barnfton herfelf have written to her 
aunt,, i< that {he knew that hers and her mother's 



[ 185 ] 



Ci mind were poifoned on the fubjecV' But if the 
Bithop had applied to this excellent old lady for 
the chara&er of her niece in her whole familv, 
he might have learned in what degree of efteeni 
and affection Mifs Barnfton was ever held by her 
aunt | and alfo by her mother, until the latter was 
poifoned by falfe ftories, which no one could ven- 
ture to correct.* He might have learned what 
is the opinion of Mrs. Ravenhili, and of her whole 
family, as well as of everyone elfe, on the prefent 
opening of this breach again ; and he might alfo 
learn fome circumftances refpecting the always 
weak but latterly much-impaired memory of Mrs. 
Barniton, which might be ufeful to his Lordfhip 
in teaching him caution, when fpeaking of things 
which he could not know. 

His Lordmip cannot poflibly conceive any mo- 
tives to account for Mr. Daubeny's conduct; but 
he does not confider that it would be much more 
unaccountable, if two perfons of common fenfe 
mould have plotted, and contrived, and prac- 
tifed every folly and every wickednefs, for the 
fake of an object which it was in their power to 
attain any day of their lives, by means honour- 
able, eafy, and fimple. His Lordfhip, however^ 
gives one example of Mr. Daubeny's difintereft, 
ednefs and liberality, of which he fhall not be 
deprived. The Biftiop with gravity records, that 
* See Mr. Sikes's letter already quoted, 



[ 187 ] 



immediately after Mifs Barnfton's return from the 
continent, Mr. Daubeny actually went, for one 
whole week, to his own parifn, and to his own 
houfe, leaving Mifs Barnfton in her mother's houfe, 
and in her own home ; to give her an opportunity 
of fpeaking to her mother without his being pre- 
fent!!! And his Lordmip cites evidence to the 
faQ ! ! ! But Mr. Meade mud venture to relate 
two inftances, in which he dues not appear to 
have been fo very liberal in leaving Mifs Barnfton 
to her own judgment and difcretion. 

Mifs Barnfton's relations, feeing her defirous of 
exerting herfelf againft Mr. Daubeny's power, 
and propofing to fupport her, a plan was arranged 
for her declaring it to her mother. But in order 
to countenance this, it was thought neceffary in 
delicacy that an opening fhould be made by a 
refpeclful letter from Mr. Meade to Mifs Barnfton, 
at her mother's houfe ; while me propofed to be 
in Bath about the time of the letter's arrival, to 
meet it. But the letter having arrived firft, Mr. 
Daubeny took it, and, it is prefumed, read and 
kept it; for he never gave it to Mifs Barnfton, but 
anfwered it himfelf with the utmoft degree of 
bitternefs and infult, ftill making ufe of Mrs. 
Barnfton's name. 

The other inftance is, that previoufly to Mr. 
Meade's leaving England in July 1790, after Mifs 
Barnfton had firft yielded to Mr. Daubeny 's in- 



[ 188 ] 



fluence over her mother, flie defired that Mr. 
Meade would fend her a parcel of journals and 
other papers; but in the prejudiced ftate of her 
family, Hie begged that they fliould not fee them 
delivered, as it would only add to her uneafinefs 
and vexations: and a refpe&able family in Bath, 
who pitied more than blamed her fubjeclion and 
timidity, undertook to fend the packet. But the 
bearer miftaking Mrs. Daubeny for her filler Mifs 
Barnfton gave it to her, who, having received it 
as Mifs Barnfton, did not convey it to her fifter 3 
to whom it was addreffed, nor even to her mo- 
ther; but fmgular as it will appear, it was to her 
hufband that flie carried her lifter's packet. Mr, 
Daubeny in a few days reftored the packet; but 
kept the letter, which was tied on the outfide a 
until fome time after, when Mifs Barnfton diftxr 
vered and demanded it. 

If after all this any one can doubt Mr. Daube- 
ny *s influence in the Barnfton family, it may be 
laid to that perfon, in the words of the late ami- 
able and learned Bifhop Home, " that no evidence 
<fe in the world will make a man believe what he 
i£ does not choofe to believe."* 

* If the Bifhop fhould fay that he views the affair now in a 
different arrangement, and in a new light, Mr. Meade is ready to 
accept his acknowledgments. But he muft remind his Lordfhip 
that he had feen almoft all that is given in this pamphlet, and that 
he might have feen every document and proof in Mr. Meade*s 
iJofTeffioDj if he Jiad enquired. Mr. Meade admits that he did nQt 



t 189 ] 



Mr. Meade is at a iofs to conceive what the 
Rifliop meant by profeffions of impartiality, which 
he underftands that he made when he was apply- 
ing for Mr. Meade's papers, or by his affurances 
that he mould li fieri to no prejudiced parties or 
partizans. With one of the parties he had indeed 
no intercourfe, having never feen Mr. or Mrs. 
Meade. But it was not fo with the other party, 
The Bifhop and Mr. Daubeny had conftant and 
daily intercourfe ; every paper was handed in, 
which might work its effect; anecdotes infilled on, 
which might poifon a ftranger's mind, or deilroy 
chara&er by the deadly blalls of infinuation ; everj 
opportunity was open for commenting and glofs- 
ing ; large packets were added, when all feemed 
finifhed; and fent in fo critically, that, as his Lord- 
ihip fays, he could hardly read them while in 
Bath, and was forry he could not have fome con- 
verfation with Dr. Randolph on the fubje£L His 
Lordfliip's mind feemsto have been thus prepared 
for fentence, rather than for trial! it feems ilrange 
that reconcilement did not occur to his mind, as 
it did to every other per/on : or that he mould 
enter on the affair, without the knowledge of one 
of the parties : or that he mould be uneafy about a 
friend's opinion in London, refpecting a matter and, 
perfons whom he fays he did not know: or that a 

take the trouble to arrange his papers until his Lordfhip rendered 
it neceflary, becaufe he never thought of making them public* 



t w i 



family difagreement mould otherwi'fe inrerett him, 
but as he could make people friends, and obtain 
for himfelf the bleffingof the peace-maker! Bat 
his Lordftiip feems to explain his own meaning, 
when he fays that the fubje6f. was important, be* 
caufe it involved the character of a theologian. 

That religion is wounded by the difTentions of 
brothers and fitters, and by a clergyman having a 
verdict recorded againft him in a public court, is 
but too plain To all good chriftians. It mutt needs 
be that offences come; but the woe is to them 
by whom they come. When with grief and mor- 
tification Mr. Meade heard that a brother-in Jaw, 
who had known him for fifteen years, reprefented 
him as capable of doing what no man more ab- 
horred; did he not write to offer him every fatis- 
faftory explanation, profeffing that he fhonld think 
nothing humiliating that might bring brothers 
back to friendfhip? Did he truft to prejudice 
and paffion for his conductors? or did he confide 
himfelf to three gentlemen* of the higheft re- 
fpeclability and worth, whofe endeavours for an 
amicable accommodation he encouragedf by 
every means in his power; and who teftified their 
opinion of his conduct by accompanying him into 
court as his friends and fupporters ? When he 

* Dr. Blayney, Archdeacon Coham, and Mr. Goddard. 
t See Dr. Blayney's account of the negociation ? printed in 
Mr. Meade's frrft pamphlet. 



[ 191 J 



mentioned the (hocking infmuations againft him 
which he knew it to be impoffible for his brother- 
in-law ferioufly to believe, did Mr. Daubeny ever 
give him the fatisfa&ion of hearing that fuch 
charges were not made? Was Mr. Meade not 
even dared into a court of law, threatened with 
** the feverity of juftice," and told, " that arbitra- 
«* tion was liftened to only becaufe Mr. Meade's 
<c friend Dr. Blayney propofed it?"* If then Mr. 
Meade was called upon to (land in his own de- 
fence, is he anfwerable for an adverfary'sdifgrace I 
Is this wantonly injuring his character? 

Satisfied with having once more difcharged a 
duty which he owed to his wife and to his chil- 
dren, to his friends and to himfelf, Mr. Meade 
here takes leave of his readers, afTuring them, 
that as the vindication of thofe raoft dear to him 
was the fole motive of his laying before them this 
addrefs, fo nothing but a fimilar imperious call 
fhall ever again induce him to take up his pen in 
their j unification. 

Whether the Bilhop of Lincoln has altered the 
opinion of the public, or increafed their informa- 
tion on the fubjecl: of Mr. Daubeny and his caufe, it 
is not for Mr. Meade to fay ; nor whether it would 

* Mr. Daubeny appears to have continued his defiance of Mr. 
Meade, until he discovered that there was proof fuffic'mit againft 
him to ground an action upon. 



[ 192 J 

not have been well, if officious zeal had fuffered 
the caufe to remain in that oblivion, where Mn 
Meade would gladly have left it. 

Having no malice or defire of revenge, even 
towards thofe who have endeavoured to injure 
him in the mod tender part, Mr. Meade wifhes 
only to be at peace with his enemies, and in cha-. 
rity with the world. 



THOMAS MEADE. 

Chatley, SomerfetJJiire. 



APPENDIX 



(A.) 

Mrs. Meade's Correspondence with her Mother; 
together with the Account of Archdeacon Coham's 
Interposition to procure Family Peace, 



Mrs. Meade to her Mother. 

€< IT is a duty I owe to myfelf, to my children, and to 
• my hulband; a duty I owe chiefly " to you, and to 
ie the memory of my father, -to hold up my hands againft 
" unmerited charges; and to declare, as I mail anfwer 
(i it before God, that you are deceived, and that I am 
<e wronged. Are you fure, my dear Madam, that you have 
(C ac-ted as you would be done by? Have you enquired, 
e * or heard from difpaffionate men, the merits of this 
ie unhappy difpute? Pardon me, Madam, for faying, 
4C that, inftead of fuch difpaffionate enquiry, you have (hut 
ie your ears againft it; and as you firft received, fo you 
(£ continue to take your bias from thofe who have unhap- 
Ci pily made their credit to depend on my rejection. 
f( Under fuch circumftances, can you perfuade yourfelf 
" that you have heard and know the truth? If I ac- 
6( knowledged, 6 that you once confented to my marrying 
6 Mr. Meade, and deflred me to perfuade Mr. D/ do I 
(c really for this deferve to be publickly charged with the 
6i dreadful crime of perjury? That you forget it, I am 
<( perfuaded. Why will you not have equal indulgence for 
<e jne? But is it likely that fo kind a mother would have 
Xi been fo Angularly fevere to a daughter at my age and 
€< in my circumftances, as fternly to refufe confent to her 

Q 



194 



Appendix. 



" marrying a man equal to her in every refpect, and whofe 
e( character was not then ftained by thofe heavy charges 
" which were afterwards whifpered againft it? Have I 
(( not alfo all poffible teftimony to fatisfy both yon and me 
6< that I fpoke the truth, and that you forget it? Do I 
se deferve for this to be publifhed by a Brother and a Mi- 
(c nifter, under my Mother's fanction, as a perjured, loft 
ec woman? God help and forgive us all!* 

" I truft I could in every other refpect prove myfelf not 
i( lefs innocent. I betrayed no fecret, for none was ever 
ec entrufted to me as fuch. The part I acled was no^ 
u more called for by humanity to one fide, than it was 
6e conliftent with the tenderefl friendmip for the other; 
ce and I am perfuaded that you yourfelf would have a£ted 
6( with the fame charitable mind that I did. I had no 
" object but the recovery of good-will among relations: 
** and furely common fenfe muft affure you that I could 
fe have no other view; for did not my own happinefs de- 
* e pend on preferring friendfhips, not in exciting animo- 
e( fities? That recourfe was had to law, almoft killed me 
iC with forrow ; but it was not my doing. My appearance 
" and evidence in Court, Heaven knows, were forely 
u againft my will. I was required to fpeak out on my 
<e oath, and I confcientioufly anfwered the queftions put 
€c to me, God is the judge of my truth. What I de- 
<( clared that Mr. D. had told me, I never heard that he 
* e could or would deny; nor could I ever have fuppofed 
" that he meant or wifhed to deny it. And furely there 

* This is the paiTage from which the Bifhop of Lincoln infers 
an acknowledgment of criminality in Mrs. Meade : his Lordlhip 
having flopped critically at that part of the fentence which might 
admit of a contraction that is contradicted by the whole letter* 



APPENDIX. 



195 



<c there is not one of our family and connexions that 
(( mull not have acknowledged to have heard the fame in 
iC fubftance, if the lawyers (contrary to Mr. Meade's 
ce wiflies and mine) had not called on me only to be the 
<e witnefs of it. If on one fide there was pecuniary lofs, 
" there was no gain on the other; an immenfe bill of 
(C colls having required all that was received to difcharge 
t( it. Money, I can truly fay, was no objecl: of Mr. 
is Meade; for, as he inftructed his Counfel to fay, 6 he 
would rather his opponents would candidly acknow— 
6 ledge their errors, than that he mould obtain a verdi£t 
c for ten thoufand pounds!' 

iS Let me then, again, before it is too late, implore you, 
ee for God's fake, and by the memory of my beloved 
" Father; let me, in the name of three grandchildren, 
ee implore reconcilement with you, as far as you can grant 
" it. If cruel circumftances deny me your fociety, let me 
<e receive under your own hand an alfurance of your 
(i bleflmg, your forgivenefs, and love. If any one mould 
" be inflexible in this unmerited prejudice againll me, 
" none can furely objecl: to your feeking the bleffed re- 
6e ward of the merciful, by dying in peace and love with 
*< your fuppliant child, C. M." 

The reader has already been informed of the circum- 
ftances under which Mrs. Meade married. Her mother's 
mind had been poifoned and irritated, and her houfe fliut 
againft her daughter, whofe bell friends advifed her to 
marry Mr. Meade ; and he received her as his wife, when 
(he was no longer a member of Mrs. Barnllon's family. 
Every part of Mrs. Meade's conduct was guided by the 
advice and under the direction of her ever-valued friend 
Mr. Goddard; who was of opinion, that to write to alk 

O 2 



196 



APPENDIX. 



her mother's confent, would be nothing lefs than to infult 
her, becaufe Mrs. Meade muft know that her mother 
could not give it. But he advifed her to do, what {he never 
ceafed to practife, that is, to intreat with humility and 
duty her mother's forgivenels for the unintended offence 
flie had given her, by not afking her confent, or commu- 
nicating her intentions to her when me did marry; 
pleading the neceffity to which me was reduced, but at 
the fame time endeavouring to avoid any expreffion that 
might give Mr. D. a pretence for oppoflng her. 

To the above letter Mrs. Barnfton gave no anfwer; 
but Mrs. M. Barnfton wrote to Mrs. Meade a long letter 
in her mother's name, but certainly not in her mother's 
language; whole fentences being word for word the fame 
as are found in a letter from Mr. D. to Mrs. Meade. 
In this letter the old arguments and charges were re- 
peated, as if they had never been explained or anfwered 3 
and a command was given (according to the ufual prac- 
tice) that no anfwer mould be returned to the letter; 
the laft words of it being as follows : " To prevent a re- 
ft petition of ufelefs writing on your part, my mother has 
S( charged me to open every letter directed to her, and to 
€e Ihew her no letter that comes from yourfelf. Whilft I 
<e write in order to fecure my mother's future tranquillity^ 
(e I muft, in order to fecure my own, beg you will not 
<c write to me on this fubje&. Mart Barnston." 

Long and unkind as the above letter was, yet Mrs. 
Meade received in a day or two another from Mr. D. 
himfelf, ftill more offenflve and infulting; with grea$ 
profeffions of pity and tendernefs; hoping that Heaven 
would fee her conduct in not fo bad a light; trusting that 
the curse of ill-gotten riches would not be entailed on her 



APPENDIX. 



397 



children; leaving her to God and her own confcience, 
Sec. &c. Mrs. Meade took no notice of this letter 5 but 
{he wrote to her mother as follows. 

Mrs. Meade to Mrs. Barnston. 
" WHEN I folicited reconcilement with you, I did 
<e hope that no one's interference might be neceffary. 
ee But I chiefly hoped that you would not have thought it 
<c neceffary to lay my letters before Mr. D. ; for I forefaw 
" the fatal, confequences of it. And a letter T have 
** juft received from him proves but too well thac my 
ce fears were not groundlefs; and that there is to be no 
<c reconcilement, until we meet where allmiflakes will be 
" cleared up, and peace and love be reftored. 

" What had Mr. D. to do, when I only fought to throw 
ee myfelf at the feet of my mother ? He has taken upon 
<e him to anfwer my letter to you with fuch a fpirit, that 
ee I fee all my profpecls with you in this life are at an end. 
rt In the objections againft me, I could foon fatisfy an 
ee unprejudiced mind ; but where every thing is miftated 
i( or perverted on my fubje6t, and where a rooted preju- 
€< dice has taken place, it is vain to try to convince. 
(c I retire, therefore, but not in obftinacy or refentment ; 
" for if ever it fhall pleafe God to turn your heart to me, 
tc I will fly to you, wherever I may be, if it be only for 
c( one moment of your life. All I want on earth is your 
<e love and bleffing; I have, thank Heaven, every thing 
" elfe. Providence has bleffed me with three infants; I 
i( enjoy the confidence and affe&ion of an honeft man ; 
tc and I am favoured with the comforts of a reafonable 
£i competency. I will make no other remark on the ex- 
(f preffions in my filter's letter about Mir, M. when (he 



19S 



APPENDIX. 



<( talks of scurrility and falsehood, than that I 
ce grieve at her blindnefs and prejudice, and am thankful 
" that {he does not know him. C. Meade. 5 ' 

About a year after, Mrs, Meade having accom- 
panied Mr. M. in ill health to Bath, was advifed, before 
{he left it, to offer to her mother an opportunity of feeing 
her children; and her fervants having taken them .to the 
parade near her houfe, left a note for Mrs. Barnfton, to 
fay they were at play there, and. if {he wifhed to fee them, 
they mould wait on her. A fervant of Mrs. Barnflon's 
immediately came out, and took up one of the children, 
Mrs. M. Barnfton took up another, and a third was able 
to walk up flairs; when their grandmother received them 
with the utmoft tendernefs, and {hewed all that fenfibility 
which was natural on feeing for the firft time three chil- 
dren fo nearly connected with her. 

The pleafure and the congratulations of Mrs. Meade's 
friends on this occaflon were foon damped; for in three 
days a letter came from Mrs. M. Barnfton to Mrs. 
Meade, as follows : 

" MY mother begs T will remind you of her refolution 
ee of not writing to you again. But {he thinks it neceffary 
* e to fay thefe few words, to prevent your children being 
<c refufed admittance at her houfe. She faw them, be- 
ee caufe you defired it,* as they could have nothing to do 
* f with the conduct of their parents. But as feeing your 
* c children can only ferve to bring to mind the reafons 

* This is not a candid reprefentation. Mrs. Barnfton faw her 
grand-children, not becaufe it was Mrs. Meade's, but her oivn defire. 
It was left to her, whether me would wifh to fee them or not. But 
this paffage, at all events, contradids fully an afTertion of Mr. D.'s, 
that " the children were forced into their grandmother's houfe." ^ 



APPENDIX. 



199 



i( flic cannot fee their mother, {he begs that their vifit may 
" never be repeated, as it muft be the caufe of more pain 
te than pleafure." 

This letter and conduct appeared very unaccountable ; 
but the myttery was foon cleared up. Mr. D. was abfent 
from Bath when Mrs. Barnfton faw her grand-children; 
and immediately after his return the letter was written 
forbidding them forever from going to her houfe again. 
What other violent stepshe took in Mrs. Meade's family, 
are beft known to himfelf, and are not altogether unknown 
to her. She therefore wrote a letter to her mother, from 
which the following- are a few extracts. 

D 

" I have received my fitter's letter, defiring that I 
ec fhould never again fend my children to your houfe. I 
ee will take care they {hall never intrude upon you. The 
<f unkind expreffions which my fitter's letters always con- 
'f tain, affect me with forrow, but not with refentment; 
tc nor {hall they ever draw from me a word of anger. I 
ec can eafily forgive, becaufe I have injured no one, and 
" deferve not her reproaches ; and I pray that the injuttice 
C( done tome may never be charged to any one." 

< 6 Permit me, dear Madam, to implore you, for 

(< my fake and for your own, to confider. Every friend 
" to you and to Chriftianity would rejoice that you would 
" reltore to your heart a daughter that was loft to you. 
<( But if I mutt be cleared before you forgive me, let me 
6e know my faults, and if I do not fatisfy difpattionate 
ec minds, I give up all hopes of happinefs. If frem ob^ 
Ejections rife one after another, and year after year, and 
(C no one on my part is at hand to point out the errors, it 
<c is endlefs to trouble you with explanations; it is in- 
* ( effectual for myfelf, and defeats the very end of charity/' 



200 



APPENDIX. 



The year following, Mr. Meade having removed into 
Somerfetfhire, Mrs. Meade thought proper to write to 
her mother again ; which (he was the more induced to, as 
flie underftood that Mr. D. and hisfamily were in London. 

EXTRACTS. 
Mrs. Meade to Mrs. Barnston. 

(£ Nov. 1797. 

cc PERSUADED that you will not quit this world in 
" your prefent averfion from me, I venture once more to 
" acquaint you that I have changed my refidence, and am 
(i fixed probably for life; and if it (hall pleafe God to turn 
(i your heart to me before it is too late, T fhall be ready 
" every minute while I live to throw myfelf at your feet.'* 

ee It is a truth not to be concealed, that every 

et Chriftian heart grieves at the wounds given to religion 
6C by fuch an example of perfevering unforgivenefs. If 
C£ I am to have no mercy, do not refufe me common jus- 
66 tice. Tell me calmly all you blame in me, and if I do 
" not fatisfy you, then give way to feverity. I will fatisfy 
€€ you, if you will judge me yourfelf, and by yourfelf. 
i e Your own heart is the beft counfellor. But if letters 
(C are handed to an adverfe party, full of prejudice and 
(( anger againft me, how is the blefled work of peace ever 
iC to be obtained? If Mr. D. is to anfwer my letters to 
<( you, as he did by my laft, what hope is there for us? 
(( His own letter proves that he cannot give an unpreju- 
ec diced opinion about me, when he fays, that e to admit 
< truth in me, is to put a knife to his own throat;' for 
(( where fuch intereft affects any man, it is impoffible he 
" can be a fafe advifer; and fo I remember he himfelf 
iS faid on another occafion. The charges of perjury { 



APPENDIX. 



201 



fi mould be afhamed to repel, did not you lend your name 
" to them. Mr. Coham could have fatisfied you of what 
(t I faid of him ; and Mr. Hooker, who heard it alfo from 
" Mr. D. himfelf. I am charged too with perjury, in 
" defcribing the ftate of my own mind. Has the Searcher 
(< of hearts given any man the power of knowing mine 
6i better than I do myfelf ? And mall that perfon's word 
(e fuperfede my oath with my mother? Why naffer an 
ce adverfary to comment on parts of letters written at pe- 
" culiar times, and under different ft ages of the buiinefs, 
<e and to urge them as proofs ? Why not enquire the ftate 
<{ of my mind of the Mifs Sawbridges, Mrs. Gunning 
(C and others, to whom I always frankly opened it at the 
i( moment?" 

— — " Afk yourfelf, Madam, did you hear no infinu- 
* ( ations to the fame effect as I did, againft Mr. M. and did 
<c they make no impreffion on you? Afk the fame quef- 
* c tion of every connexion of ours, without exception? 
<6 Mr. D. hopes c the curfe of ill-gotten riches will not be 
( entailed on my children.' God, I truft, will blefs, 
<e not curfe them. He will never curfe them for crimes 
(e unjuftly imputed to me. But I neither coveted nor 
t( have any riches of Mr. D.'s. I have loft through him 
<c the charities and kindnefs of my family, and he enjoys 
<c them. But as to riches, I have more than I deferve, 
(e and am thankful. Content renders my competence 
" abundance. Let me have my mother's bleffing and love; 
c< it is my due, and is all I feek. Let others take the 
(e riches of my family." 

ic It is with pain I notice the letter Mr. D. wrote 

* c to me laft year. I hope he wrote it under delufion or 
O paffioiij and may God forgive him, as I do. Hft 



202 



APPENDIX. 



ec hopes I erred through miftake, yet he would have me 
" ptmiflied as wilfully wicked. He prays God to forgive 
" me in heaven, but will countenance no forgivenefs on 
(C earth. In the midft of the blackeft charges^ he fays it 
" is I that Dander him. And although he affects that 
ce his object is to give me private and friendly hints, he 
ce forgets that he printed a book againft me full of the 
" blackeft catalogue of crimes. I am in truth only con- 
ec fcious of defending myfeif from afperfions^ of which 
" his letter is a sufficient example. 

, . " But I will clofe my letter as I began, with im- 

€C ploring reconcilement; the joy of w r hich will more 
" than compenfate for what T have fuffered. Do not, 
€C dear Madam, reject the prayers and love of me and my 
cf children. I do not feek to feparate you from any one 
" — only reftore to me your affection and confidence $ 
cc and bury all in oblivion, by giving me that meafure of 
tc your bleflingj which I pray God to reftore ten-fold 
" to you." 

Archdeacon Cob am having read the foregoing letter^ 
wrote one alfo to Mrs. Barn^on, urging her to reconcile- 
ment by every argument of religion and juftice; and par- 
ticularly affured her, that " Mr. D.'s charge againft Mrs. 
€i Meade's veracity was unfounded, refpecting her having 
" invented the ftor'y of Mr.. D. telling Mrs. Meade that 
S( Mr. Coham and Dr. Blayney had declared themfelves 
" unfavourably to Mr. Meade's caufe;'* for that fhe had 
communicated it to him a year before a trial was thoughl 
of, with trembling and aftonifhment. " Tf I have any 
i( credit with you, (faid Archdeacon Coham) this will, I 
tc truft 3 draw the veil from your mind which prejudice 
*< may have induced j and contribute to the reconciliation 



APPENDIX. 



203 



w which in charity I wifh, and which is the fole intention 
" of this letter." 

Mrs. M. Bamfton anfwered Mrs. Meade's letter for her 
mother : " that on no terms, but of an effectual reconci- 
ec liation taking place in her family, mould me see her; 
" that done, moft gladly me would receive her to her 
u affections; that it relied only on her to effect this." 

To Mr. Coham me alfo wrote, " that he could not 
<e but fuppofe that it was her ardent wifh to have recon- 
ce cilement take place; that it would be a very great 
" happinefs to her, and to all her family; without her 
(e daughter would firft xeftore that harmony, it would be 
* c to no purpofe her feeing her while she keeps up any 
<e enmity to her family ;* the interview will only agitate 
ec her, and no good done by it. This is only in her 
" power to effect; which, when done, me may be affured 
(c of my receiving her with affection. If you, fir, can 
ec by any means be inftrumental to bring about a recon- 
* c ciliation, you will very much oblige, &c. 

" M. Barnston." 
Mr. Coham, full of fanguine hopes, determined to go 
to Bath, unfavourable as the feafon was for a very old 
and infirm man; and convinced that Mrs. Meade had no 
enmities, but on the contrary good-will towards all her 
relations, he begged her to accompany him in his car- 
riage ; perfuading himfelf, that when he had feen Mrs, 
Barnfton, and laid plain facts before her, all difficulties 
muff be foon removed, and that me would immediately 
fee her daughter. Having gone to Bath, Mr. Coham 
wrote to Mrs. B. 66 that he was come to wait on her in 

* The reader ivi/l obferve honv Mrs. Barnfton was deluded by a 
perfuaflon that Mrs. Meade was the perfon who kept up enmity. 



£04 



APPENDIX. 



ce corifequenee of her letter, and would attend her as foon 
6C as (he would give him leave, begging (he would fix an 
££ early hour, as he was obliged to leave Bath that day/' 
To which the following anfwer was returned: (i Mrs. B.'s 
(e refpeclful compliments to Mr. Archdeacon Coham 5 
se fhe cannot poffibly fee him to-day. " 

Mr. Coham was much hurt and furprized at this treat- 
ment from a lady with whom he had been in habits of 
intimacy, and for whofe family's fake he had eome to 
Bath; and uncertain what to do, he again wrote, u that 
44 he was much difconcerted by the laconic anfwer he 
a had received : begged to know whether fhe meant to 

" DO 

6( fee him at all, or whether he was to be trifled with; 
" but if me would wim to fee him to-morrow, he would 
££ wait till the next day." 

To this a verbal anfwer was returned, u that Mrs. 
u Barnfton would give no other anfwer than what fhe had 
6S already given. 55 

Aftonimed and mocked at all this, Mr. Coham and 
Mrs. Meade prepared to leave Bath; but they had the 
myftery cleared up before they fat off. Mr. Daubeny had 
juft returned from London, and was fitting with Mrs, 
Barnfton when Mr. Coham's note was received by her! 

Thefe incivilities were followed rapidly by others. A 
very long letter was written to the venerable Archdeacon 
Coham, in the name of Mrs. Barnfton, not a line of 
which was written by her ; arguing with and infulting 
him, and even charging him, one of the moft benevolent 
of men, with being inftrumental in thelaw-fuit, &c. The 
ftile and language of the letter manifeftly difcovering the 
author in every line. 



APPENDIX. 



20$ 



Another very long letter was alfo fent in Mrs. Barn {ton's 
name to Mrs. Meade; in which whole fentences are 
founds the fame as in Mr. D.'s letters, charging her with 
iliocking criminality; and, regardlefs of proofs and argu- 
ment, merely repeating words, as Mr. D. had done in 
his letter to Mrs. Meade the year before; and referring 
her to that letter, requiring confeffions of perjury, &e. 

Mrs. Meade, in reply, wrote the letter already quoted 
in page 109, in which me declared that {he would give 
any considerations for reconcilement with her, but thofe 
of confcience and truth; and if her mother continued 
inflexible in her mocking conditions, " God forbid that 
« (lie mould accept them/' [The reader is requeiled to 
look back to that letter, page lop/) 

Mr. Coham alfo wrote to her, and obferved, €( thai 
" when me expreffed the obligations me mould feel, if he 
<c could be inftrumental in bringing about reconcilement, 
*' he thought converfation was the only one which had 
u not been tried, and that he had fuch overtures to make 
4C as he thought could not be refufed; that the conditions 
" on which me propoied to receive her daughter were 
* c fuch as ought to induce her to abandon her for ever! 
" that thefe being inadmiffible, he entered his proteft 
" agai nil them; that when me told him, c he heard only 
4 one fide;' that was her cafe, not his. And when me 
" laid that me read her Bible too much to want in- 
44 ftruclion about forgivenefs, me ufed a commentator 
" very different from his. As to reliitution, of which 
" (he talked, that her daughter owed her none; me never 
" injured her. " My mind," faid Archdeacon Coham, 
" hath this advantage over yours, that it hath no in- 
*' tereft, no worldly motive to influence it. I mall nei- 



£0$ 



APPENDIX. 



• c ther get or lofe, whether you forgive, or die and make 
u no fign. In the firft I fee happinefs, in the laft horror. 
."■With this election I leave you, and bid you my lad 
" and eternal farewell, though always wifhing to be your 
" friend, Arthur Coham." 



( B. ) 

Account of Mr, Daubeny's Application for the 
re -judging of his Ca use . 

JN the year 1798, Mr. Daubeny applied to certain 
Archbishops* and Bifhops, defining that they would 
revife and rejudge his caufe. But it is probable that none 
of them paid attention to his application; for Dr.Blayney, 
in a letter to Mr. Meade, Dec. 1798, mentions, " that 
iC one of their Lordfhips told him that he had put by the 
* c letter without an anfwer; and he could not think that 
" any other bifhop would take upon him the re judging 
" a matter which had been determined in a court of law." 

It feems, however, by the following letter, that Mr. 
Daubeny interefted fome gentlemen in Bath to counte- 
nance him, who were ftrangers to Mr. Meade; and he- 
wrote to Dr. Falconer, and applied to others for the fame, 
purpofe, which they declined. Dr. Falconer explained 
his reafons for the opinion he had formed; which were, 
that the facts being eftablimed by the verdict of a jury, 
and no application made for a new trial, that the point 



* See the extraft of Dr. Blayney's letter, Appendix Letter B. 



APPENDIX. 



207 



could be no farther contefted on any pretence whatever. 
Mr. Daubeny wrote alio on the fame fubjecl. to Dr. Blay- 
»ey| and his letter and the anfwer mall be given at large. 

Mr. Daubeny to Dr. Blayney. 

" Crefcent, Bath, May 19th, 1798. 
* c Reverend Sir, 

lc SOME late circum fiances have induced me to give 
" you an opportunity of reconfidering a fubjecl: upon 

which you have thought yourfelf qualified to form 3 
tc decided judgment. 

" Three gentlemen of the firft character and refpecta- 
u bility, one of whom is perfonally acquainted with Mr. 
" Meade, vifited at his houfe, and upon hearing his 
a story, was of course a warm advocate in his favour,* 
" have lately come forward to me, for the purpofe of 
" examining documents in my poffeffion relative to the 
« conduct of Mr. and Mrs. Meade. They have exa- 
w mined them with that fcrupulous attention due to a 

* This is a direcl mijlatemcnt\ the Gentleman alluded to is Ad- 
miral Stanhope, and fo far is it from being true, that " he was 
*' prejudiced in Mr. Meade's favour, from hearing his ftory that 
Mr. Meade had never, on any one occajion, even mentioned to hira 
Mr.Daubeny's name, or the fubjecl: in queftion. On the contrary, 
Admiral Stanhope was made fully mafter of Mr. Daubeny's ftory 
by Mr, Daubeny himfelf and was decidedly in favour of his caufe. 
The Admiral then had the good fenfe and juftice to write to Mr. 
Meade on the fubjecl:, wifhing to fee him, as he had Mr. Daubeny; 
and having heard both fides, he formed that opinion of the caufe, 
which it is prelum ed every unprejudiced pcrfon will. do. Mr. 
Meade refers to Admiral Stanhope himfelf. 



Appendix. 



" caufe in which the characters of the parties are deeply 
" concerned. Each of thefe Gentlemen, Sir, has left my 
<c houfe overwhelmed with the weight of that evidence 
ct which has been fairly fubmitted to them; and con- 
" vinced, beyond the poffibility of doubt, that the caufe 
" which it relates is of the blackeft kind. The motive 
" which prevented me from having a new trial, viz. ten- 
lt dernefs for a filter, who muft in fuch a cafe have been 
«** publickly expofed, has alfo operated with me fo far as 
" to make me quietly bear the burthen me has thought 
" proper to lay on my moulders, rather than get rid of it 
" at fo dear an expence to my feelings. The fame feel- 
" ings I ftill poffefs, and wifli the itory could have been 
" fliut up for ever. 

" But, Sir, as it is probable that fuch will not now be 
" the cafe, I feel a defire to give you that private con- 
" viclion which may, through your means, tend to {hut 
" up the mouths of Mr. and Mrs. Meade; and thereby 
" prevent a more publick exposition of their infamous 
" conduct. To induce you, Sir, to this, I propofe that 
" not a word mould be faid upon the fubjecl: of our for- 
" mer correfpondence, but that the matter mould be taken. 
<c up de novo. Inclined as I am to give you full credit 
ct for the beft intentions, I mould be forry that any ideas 
" that took place in your mind upon a former occafion, 
*' mould indifpofe you for meeting me on an amicable 
" footing. The fubjecl: I have to bring before you is not 
<c a fubjecl: for altercation, but for cool and difpaffionate 
" inveftigation. I require nothing to betaken upon truft, 
" nothing to be given up but to conviction. The preju- 
" dice you feel for your friend I wim you to preferve as 
* c long as your own character will permit you fo to do. 



APPENDIX. 



209 



<c The credit of a court, and the circumftance of no 
u attempt having been made to undo it, are moreover 
" confiderations which I defire may give way only to the 
" conviction of your own judgment. In fhort, Sir, the 
c< only object in view is to put you in actuation to judge; 
tc being fatisfied in my own mind, that if you can be per- 
" fuaded to come into that fituation, you will judge as an 
" honeft man. With this idea before me I propofe to 
" meet you with one gentleman only accompanying me, 
e< who fhall be mutually agreeable, at fome future day 
<c that may be convenient to us both. This letter will, 
" I truft, find you, Sir, in the fame difpofition of mind 
" in which it leaves me; fhould it not, (a circumftance 
" which, as a Chriftian, I (hall fmcerely lament) I have 
c< only to leave upon your thoughts this confideration: 
c< How far you will ftand acquitted to your own con- 
" fcience in perilling in the caufe of error, when that of 
" truth is thus propofed to be amicably laid before you; 
<c thereby fuffering yourfelf to be inftrumental in the pro- 
" pagation of a ftory, which is calculated more or lefs to 
41 prevent a brother clergyman from doing that good in 
" his profeffion which otherwife might be done. 

* c I am, Sir, with refpect, 

" Your moft obedient fervant, 

" Charles Daubeny." 



p 



APPENDIX. 



DR. BLAYNEY'S ANSWER. 

« Rev. Sir, 

ct I fome time ago received a letter from you, contain- 
ct ing an invitation to go over ground again which had 
" been trod before without much comfort or fatisfaction. 
ct I therefore felt altogether difinclined to the bufinefs^ 
44 and had refolved to pafs it over in perfect filence. But 
" having lately had occauon to recognize in you a pro- 
44 feffion of principles well worthy of a Chriftian divine, 
i( it ftruck me, that by uniformly acting upon fuch prin- 
44 ciples, you might attain the avowed object of your 
44 propofal more effectually than by the inveftigation you 
" call for. I {hall therefore, in the true fpirit of charity, 
" venture to lay apian before you, which, with your con- 
" currence, will doubtlefs fucceed. You have it in your 
44 pow r er to heal a family breach, which unhappily fubfifls, 
" and has for fome time fubfifted, chiefly on your account. 
44 How meritorious would it be in you to ftep forward in 
" order to promote an univerfal reconciliation ! Admit- 
44 ing faults to have taken place on both fides, (and feldom 
44 is it otherwife) I need not remind you, Sir, how ge- 
£e nerous, how truly Chriftian it is, to give up refent- 

44 ment, and to return good for evil. But in your cafe 

45 particularly, I am much miftaken if it will not be found 
4< the befVpolicy in refpect of carrying the point you have 
l - in view, that of clearing your character from afperfions 
" which you think may obftruct the good you might 
64 otherwife do in the line of your profeffion. For by this 
" means you not oijly flop the mouths of thofe who, as 
" you think, are interefled in mifreprefenting you; but 
44 the world itfelf, when it fees you again living on terms 
u of amity with them, will be led to conclude, that what 



APPENDIX. 



211 



P has palTed has been more owing to mifaoprehenfion than 
" to any malevolence of intention. Whereas, by ftill 
<c going on in this ftile of proving and defending, you 
""but perpetuate reproach ; lince it cannot be fuppofed 
u that thofe whom you accafe, will be wanting in their 
<c endeavour to repel and retort the charge. 

<4 If thefe and fuch like confiderations have any weight 
*< with you, I am free to offer myfelf once more, but I hope 
" melioribus auspiciis, in the character of a mediator, to 
" bring about peace. It is true, I have not yet confulted 
u with my friends, who are totally ignorant of my defign 
* c of writing to you, although they know I have re- 
" ceived a letter from you. But I can fafely take upon me 
" to anfwer, from a thorough knowledge of their temper 
" and difpofition, that they will be ready to meet you 
<c even more than half-way in the road to reconciliation. 
" If you, then, on your part, can afford me any encou- 
" ragement, I doubt not but all might ioon be well : and I 
" mould heartily rejoice in becoming the bleffed inftru- 
" ment of pacification. But if you determine rather to 
" perfevere in the line of enmity, (which as aMinifter of 
" the Gofpel of Peace, God forbid you mould !) my talk 
" is at an end at once ; for mo ft affuredly I will not be 
c< perfuaded to take a part any more, unlels where truth 
" and juftice may require my teftimony, in your uncha- 
" ritable bickerings. 

" I am, Reverend Sir, 

" With due refpecl:, 

" Your moft obedient humble fervant, 

* June 25th^ 1798. B. Bjlaynet/ j 

p 2 



212 



APPENDIX. 



In a few weeks Mr. Daubeny replied to this, as 
follows i 

*' Reverend Sir, 
" I received your favour fome time nnce, and fhoukl 
" have returned an earlier anfwer to it, had I not been 
te from time to time thinking of calling upon you for the 
cc purpofe of having half an hour's converfation with you 
" on the fiibject of it. This, I confefs, is what I could 
" much have wlfhed, becaufe I flattered myfelf that the 
" ftate of the cafe might have been better underftood by 
« a little converfation than by much writing. The 
" thought that fuch a vifit might be unpleafing to you 
64 has at length determined me not to attempt it; al* 
" though, Sir, I {hould be happy to refume the idea upon 
4 ' c the leaft encouragement on your part. The object of 
" my laft letter was to incite to a private amicable inves- 
" ligation of Mr. Meade's fubject. I do not wifh to 
" meet any one, a brother Clergyman in particular, upon 
" any other plan. The public affront I have received 
44 in Bath from one of Mr. Meade's friends, in confe- 
" o A uence of his flory, has rendered fome vindication of 
" my character neceflary ; and I am confident you would 
" think me unworthy of the ftation I hold in the Church, 
4 C did I reft fatisfied till that object had in fome way been 
" accomplimed. I am forry, Sir, that an idea mould 
" prevail in your mind refpecting my perfeverance e in 
4 the line of enmity.' I can allure you, I feel no enmity 
*' on the occaiion; and though deeply injured, I perfectly 
iC agree with you upon the fubjecl of giving up refent- 
" ment, and returning good for evil. I hope I lhall 
4s never think otherwife. I am moreover difpofed to give 



APPENDIX. 



213 



" full credit to Mr. Meade's friends, as honeft and honour- 
" able men 5 afking them only to concede to me one point, 
c f viz. that they are fallible men. Upon this ground 
" alone I wifh to proceed upon the prefent fubject. 

c * Thefe considerations will, I truft, Sir, have their 
il weight with you. All I afk is, what I think you would 
" expect mould be granted to you under fimilar circum- 
cc fiances. Let this golden rule of Chriftianity be the 
" ftandard for your conduct on this occafion, and I am 
<c certain it will in the end be productive of mutual fatis- 
" faction. You offer yourfelf, Sir, in the character of a 
" Mediator. I mould be happy to meet you on thatground, 
" when the fubject is in a ftate for it; but upon theprin- 
" ciple that we mud be juft before we are charitable^ 
" when a character has been publickly injured, juftifi- 
" cation of that character. ought to precede every other 
" consideration. Where nothing is required for this pur- 
<{ pofe but a private inveftigation of the conduct of the 
cc refpective parties, I fee not how it can be effected upon 
" eafier terms. If Mr. Meade's caufe was a good one in 
" the court, it muft be a good one out of it. It mult 
" doubtlefs, therefore, have occurred to you, that the event 
" of the inveftigation propofed muft be either the confirm- 
" ation of my difgrace, or the more fettled conviction of 
" your judgment. The difadvantage (if any) in this cafe 
" muft be to me — the advantage to yourfelf. You will 
" not, I flatter myfelf, on this or any occafion, find me 
" acting unworthy the character of a Minifter of the 
* Gofpel of Peace. Indeed, I will venture to fay, that 
w provided you will fo far do me the juftice as to make 
" yourfelf fully acquainted with all the circumftances of 
w the cafe in queftion, there is nothing which you will 



214 



APPENDIX. 



tc fecl yourfelf called upon by charity to do, which I fhall 
"be backward in doing; becaufe I am confident you 
" will do every thing a man of character and a clergyman 
* c ought to do upon the occafion. 

" I am, Sir, with all due refpect, 

" Your moft obedient humble fervant, 

" Charles Daubeny." 

Doctor Blayney returned the following anfwer. 

" Reverend Sir, 

" WITH a view to pacification, I have twice 
cc made you an offer of my fervices, which twice have 
<c been at kafl virtually rejected. I muft therefore take 
cc leave to adhere to my declared refolution of declining 
" any further interference. Nor can I fee ground for 
" entering afrefn, after fo long a time, into a matter 
" which has been already fo completely inveftigated, firft 
" in a court of juftice, and afterwards in adeliberate appeal 
" of both parties to the publick ; in confequence of which 
" I have fully and finally made up my mind, and have 
" not a doubt left. 

" I am, with due refpeel:, 

" Reverend Sir, 
w Your moft obecfient humble fervant, 

" B, Blayney." 

Here it may be permitted to enquire, what right had 
Mr. Daubeny to expedt that Mr Meade's clofeft friend 
fhould admit or accede to a new enquiry into his conduct, 
as if his caule were doubtful ? 



APPENDIX. 



215 



Dr. Blayney had carried on a tirefome and vexatious 
correfpondence with Mr. Daubeny during ten months, 
for the exprefs purpofe of obtaining an amicable invefti- 
gation of the difference between Mr. Meade and him. 
He did it to prevent, if pofiible, the necefllty of having 
recourfe to a court of juftice. And by his flatement, 
which he permitted Mr. Meade to print, it appears that 
he did not give up his efforts for fuch private enquiry, 
until after repeated infults from Mr. Daubeny, and much 
diflatis faction with his conduct.* It was not till then 
that Mr. Meade, with the Doctor's concurrence, and that 
of every difpaffionate perfon, had his caufe brought into 
the Court of King's-Bench, where it was decided in a 
public and regular manner. 

In the laft of Mr. Daubeny's preceding letters, a few 
paffages require a particular notice. There is no founda- 
tion for the affertion, that " he received an affront in Bath 
'* in confequence of Mr. Meade's {lory." The perfon 
alluded to is Mrs. Falconer. f It feems that fhe chofe to 
go to St. James's Church on a Sunday when Mr. Daubeny 
went to preach at the one which fhe ufually attended. 
At that time Mr. Meade was a very new acquaintance 
of hers, and had never opened his lips to her on Mr. 
Daubeny's fubjecl:. She judged as others did, from no- 
torious facts. 

* See Dr. Blayney's account of the negociation in Mr. Meade's 
pamphlet, 1754 ; a few copies of which Mr. Meade has remaining. 

t Mrs. Falconer is fince dead; but both Dr. Falconer and his 
fon, the Rev. Mr. Falconer, will bear teftimony to the truth of what 
is here related. And when Mr. Daubeny pleads this affront as ren- 
dering a vindication of his character neceffary ; he forgets his cqn* 
tJucl for many years preceding this circumftance. 



216 



APPENDIX. 



Mr. Daubeny aflerts it as a principle that we muft be 
just before we are charitable. Where is this principle 
found? " To be juft before we are generous" is an old 
precept in pecuniary matters \ but where does the Gos- 
pel lay it down as a principle, that a party in a contention 
fhall be judge how far his own idea of juftice {hall be fa- 
tisfied, even to admit of charity ? Who would venture 
to pray God that his justice mould precede mercy? And 
yet we all pray that He would deal by us as we do by others. 

Mr Daubeny's aftiimption, that tf if Mr. Meade's 
<c caufe was good in court, it muft be fo out of court/* 
is very true, but his inference is falfe; the merits remain 
the fame. But the point mould be thus ftated: ce In a 
" private meeting, without Judge, Jury, Witnesses, Oath, 
* c or Restraint; when bold and falfe aflertions may be 
" made at will, without means of fiftingor examining on 
" oath, has innocence an equal chance with guilt? And 
<c mould fuch a mockery of a trial be reforted to, after a 
" cause had been decided in a court of juftice?" Is not 
the defign obvious? 

In like manner Mr. Daubeny fpeaks of <c all the dis- 
" advantage being his." This is another deception. 
What difadvantage ? He might gain, but could not lose. 
If by any means or chance he could induce people to think 
of him more favourably, he would be fo far a gainer; 
whereas an unfavourable opinion would but leave him 
where he is. 



APPENDIX, 



217 



( c. ) 

Narrative of Mrs. Meade's Visit to her Mother. 

September, 1803. 

MRS. Meade had been more than eleven years married 
without being able to fee her mother. She had 
written frequently to her, but her letters were always an- 
fwered, with infults and feverity, by perfons interefted or 
influenced ao-ainft her : and the mediation of friends was 
equally fruitlefs, they being never in any one inftance 
permitted to fpeak to Mrs. Barnftonon the fubjec~t. Mrs. 
Meade therefore determined at length to go to her mother's 
houfe. It had been always recommended to her; and 
although her opponent appeared to be now too ftrong, 
and her mother too weak, to admit of very fanguine hopes 
of fuccefs, yet it was itill recommended, as the only ftep 
{he had left untried. But before the account of her vifit 
be related, it is neceffary to ftate that the caufe of it at this 
particular time was that Mr. Stevens, an old and much- 
elteemed friend of Mr. Daubeny, as well as of Mrs. 
Meade's family, being in Bath, and being treated by Mr. 
Daubeny with coldnefs and difrefpect in the ftreet, re- 
ceived from him the next morning the following letter : 

Rev. Chas, Daubeny to Wm. Stevens, Efq. 
" Sir, 

" IT may not be more agreeable to your feelings than 
a it is to mine, that I mould pafs by an old and truly- 
" refpected friend unnoticed. But you have placed your- 
ie felf and me in that fituation, that fo it muft be, unMs 



APPENDIX. 



" you choofe it fhould be otherwife. After a long and 
<c intimate acquaintance with my chara&er, you have 
" committed yourfelf againft it, without permitting your- 
" felf to doubt, or to make enquiry. I can make all due 
" allowance, becaufe I know the art that has been prac- 
" tifed upon you. It is ftill however in your power to 
" tread back your fteps, if you think proper. If not, I 
" muft leave you, though unwillingly, to travel on to your 
u grave, accompanied with the refleaion of having, in 
" confequence of wilfully (hutting your eyes againft the 
" light, perfifted in fupporting the caufe of falfehood and 
" infamy againft that of truth and honour. 

<c Dr. Randolph, I underftand, confiders that his friend 
st Mr. Meade can gain no advantage from farther invefti- 
" gation, becaufe he has the opinion of the world already. 
" Both Dr. Randolph and myfelf ought to look beyond 
6C this world. To meet Dr. Randolph, however, on worldly 
cc ground, I propofe a worldly advantage to his friend, if he 
tc can prove himfelf entitled to it. I will put down 5001.* 
" on the table, on this condition, that if Mr. Meade can 
" prove himfelf to be the injured man, and that as fuch 
" he was entitled to his verdia in the judgment of honour. 
i€ able and unprejudiced parties, the 5001. {hall be his 

* What man, found guilty by a jury, would not put down 500!. 
or 5000I. according to his fortune or his wounded pride, for the 
chance of fuch a trial as Mr. Daubeny propofes ; where himfelf and 
his party would have to give their teftimony on their words, with- 
out power in the judges to examine, to adminifter an oath, to en- 
force the attendance of witneffes, or to reftrain the parties in any 
degree? At fuch a trial, and before fuch judges, is it not reafon- 
able to fuppofe that Mr. Daubeny would do, as he did by others 
who thought him wrong; that is, turn his back on them, or infult 
them, and fay jhey knew nothing of the matter I 



APPENDIX. 



219 



€C own. But if cn the contrary I prove his caufe to be 
" fuch as every man of character ought :o reprobate, and 
({ the evidence produced by him in court to be groffly and 
" wilfully perjured, in fuch cafe Mr. Meade mall refund 
" the verdict he has unjuftly obtained, for the benefit of the 
" Ba'h Hofpital. Such is my propofal. I challenge Mr. 
" Meade's friends to accept it. An affair of this nature 
Ci admits of no poffible compromife. My character is 
tL of that importance, in my own eyes at leaft, that I can 
" never fubmit to its being made the fcapegoat for that of 
(( Mr, or Mrs. Meade. Either I am the man Mr. Meade 
" reprefents me, or I am not. Upon no other confider- 
" ation than that of a&ing up to the character for which 
i6 I have been always difpofed to give you credit, that of 
" an honeft and zealous friend, by proving whether I 
" am fo or not, can I ever receive the hand of Mr. 
" Stevens. I am, Sir, with refpeel, &c. 

"Jan. 20, 1S03. CHARLES DAUBENY," 

To which Mr. Stevens replied, 

(< I HAVE received your letter in explanation of ha- 
ie ving palTed by an old friend without vouchfafing to 
C( tak»g any notice of him. Your behaviour I thought 
" feemed to require fome apology, and I am pleafed to 
<c find you are of the fame opinion. I with it may lead 
* ( to good, and by putting an end to the forrows, be the 
(i beginning of joy to a long divided and diftra&ed family. 
" But I muft confefs I have my doubts. The queftion 
" with me now is, whether the letter itfelf does not ftand 
i( in need of apology, which perhaps you will not be fo 
i( ready to make. For pray, my dear Sir^ how came you 



APPENDIX. 



€t to know fo decidedly what is not the fac"t, that i com- 
6C mitted myfelf againft your character, without permit- 
* c ting myfelf even to doubt or to make inquiry?* You 
fit fay likewife you know the art that has been practifed on 
5C me. But you are in this no lefs egregioufly miftaken 
* c than in the other affertion. Whatever you may think 
* c you know, take my word for it, no art, as you call it, has 
* c been practifed on me. Prefuming on my being a poor 
€C weak creature, which God knows I am, you haftily 
* c conclude that I am eafily impofed on. But I truft, c I 
* & £ may, without treading back the fleps I have gone, tra- 
* c ' vel on to my grave unaccompanied by the reflection 
*' i of having in confequenee of wilfully {hutting my eyes 
fie c againll the light, perfifted in fupporting, as you choofe 
* £ c to reprefent it, the caufe of falfehood and infamy 
€C c againft that of truth and honour/ As to your pro- 
&c pofal for a re-hearing of the caufe, I have only to 
" fay I am fully perfuaded that Mr. Meade (to whom 
ic what you have written mail be communicated) will 
€s mod cheerfully accede to any proportion you can make, 
cc that is honourable, and likely to produce good-will 
ec and harmony. And as to your character, which is of 
&e importance, as you rightly obferve, in your own eyes, 

* Thofe who are unacquainted with Mr. Daubeny*s confidence 
In making affertions, will be furprifed to hear, after this charge 
againft. Mr. Stevens, that fo far from " judging without inquiry,'* 
fee was amongft the iirft of Mr. Daubeny's friends, who at his requeft 
attended him for many hours in Bath, to read his voluminous charges, 
enforced by his own comments, explanations, and affertions. He 
was prefent at the trial, and had one of Mr. Daubeny's books fent 
to him as a particular friend, and all this at a time when he was 
almoft a Itranger to Mr. Meade, and his former friendfhips and 
prejudices inclined him ftronglyto Mr. Daubeny: "Amicus Plato? 
*' red magis arnica Veritas " was, however, more ftrong with him, 



APPENDIX. 221 

w and let me add, in the eyes of others alio, I have long 
w thought that nothing would contribute fo much to fe- 
" cure you the efteem of all good men, and I mould hope 

* the approbation of your own confcience, as the praclice 
a of a little more Chriftian charity, and forgiving as you 
" expecl: to be forgiven. Whether you will receive my 
" hand or not, muft be left to yourfelf; but I {hall not be 
ic backward to give It 5 and that you may fee the things 

* which belong to your peace, and to the peace of thofe 
" with whom you are more particularly bound to be at 
* c peace, is the flncere prayer of 

"January 21, 1803. W. S." 

Mr. Stevens, after fome days, wrote again to Mr, Dau- 
beny as follows : — 

" Rev. Sir, 

" Not hearing from you mice my reply to your letter 
£C of January 20, I take it for granted you do not see the 
(€ propriety of what I there intimated, that fome apology 
ee might be neceffary on your part for what had been ad- 
" vanced in your letter. However that may be, I am 
£C not without hopes that the correfpondence which has 
(c been renewed between two old friends on a difagreeable 
€( fubje6t may yet terminate happily. I have acquainted 
C( Mr. Meade, whom I have feen, with what has palled, 
(i and I found him, as I expected, well inclined to lifteu 
(( to any propofal that is calculated to anfwer fome good 
(i purpofe. But, my old friend, (if I may fo fpeak) of 
" what ufe can it be to ftir up ftrife again ? Is it not much 
" better to let go contention? Suppofe you are the in- 
<e jured perfon, where is the benefit of proving it, unlefs 
"to mew how ready you are to forgive injuries?" 4-nd 



222 



APPENDIX. 



(e may not that be done more earl ly at once, without taking 
cc fo much trouble? It is mentioned in the life of Sir 
ce Eardly Wilmot, that a gentleman of high rank came to 
" him one day, under the impreffion of great wrath and 
" indignation at a real injury he had received from a perfon 
€< high in the political world, and which he was medi- 
66 tating how to refent in the mod effectual manner. 
€i After relating the particulars to Sir Eardly, he afked if 
(C he did not think it would be manly to refent it. c Yes,' 
<c faid Sir Eardly, ' certainly it will be manly to refent it; 
" * but it would be godlike to forgive it.' This, the gen- 
" tleman declared, had fuch an inftantaneous effect upon 
iC him, that he came away quite a different man, and in 
" a totally different temper from that in which he went. 
C( Now if you have received an injury, why cannot you 
6C go and do likewife? Suppose Mr. and Mrs. Meade 
<€ are the injured perfons, (and furely there is no harm in „ 
" the fnppofition) I am confident they have not a wifh to 
" recall to remembrance any of the provocations you may 
cc have given, or any of the hard fpeeches you may have 
" uttered again ft them. They are no ft rangers to the 
" doctrine of the forgivenefs of injuries; neither are they 
" ftrangers to the practice of it. You challenge Mr. 
" Meade's friends to accept your propofal ; let me chal- 
c< lenge you to accept mine. If you do accept it, I think 
" I may venture to promife you will feel the comfort of 
" it. It is comprifed in two words, and I am perfuaded 
" will be readily embraced by all the parties concerned. 
" It is no more than forget and forgive. Confider h'oVy 
" good and joyful it is for brethren to dwell together in 
a unity. Let there be a general act: of oblivion for what 
" is paft. Let all animofities ceafe on all fides; and let 



APPENDIX. 



€ *>the family be again what it once was, the family of 
" love. Oh! that I mio;ht be made the inftrument of 
- s aflembling yon all together, children and grand-child- 
" ren, to receive, the bleffing of the venerable old lady, 
" your excellent mother-in-law, whole heart would re- 
<c joice at the event; and to fee you all embrace one ano- 
ie ther with the kifs of charity. It would be a pleafant 
ie fight, and I mould efteem it one of the happier! days 
" of my life to accomplifh fo good a work. Bear in mind 
" what I have faid; fufTer the word of exhortation from a 
" zealous friend, and let me have the fatisfaclion of re- 
" fleeting that it may give me fome title to the beatitude 
sc in the Gofpel, ' Blefled are the peace-makers.' 

" Adieu. Your's, fincerely. 

<c Feb. 7, 1803. Wm. Stevens." 

The Rev. Charles Daubeny's reply to the above was 
as follows : 

"To William Stevens, efq. 
" Sir, 

" I am certainly bound to thank you for your earn eft 
" endeavours to mediate between Mr. Meade and myfelf, 
u with the charitable object in view of bringing together 
"a divided family; and mould think myfelf bound to 
<c thank you ftill more, could you devife any plan for that 
ct purpofe, which in the opinion of my friends (conside- 
" ratis consider andis ) ought by me to be embraced. On 
" this fubjeit I cannot fpeak more ftrongly than I fpake 
" fome time flnce to a friend, who feemed difpofed to 
" appear in the fame charitable character with yourfelf, 
" by telling him, c that though Mr. Meade had bafely 



224 



APPENDIX. 



tc c picked my pocket of one 500!. I would willingly give 
" c another fuch fum to any one who could find a way to 
u c bring the family together without the facrifice of 
" c character.'* 

cc But, Sir, your letter feems to me to proceed on one 
<c great fallacy, againft which the integrity of your cha- 
ct ra&er has not been fufficiently on its guard, In con- 
cc tradiclion to that unequivocal language contained in my 
" former letter, which properly belongs to that decided 
€c line of conducl which juftice to myfelf has obliged me 
<e to adopt on this occafion, you fay, ' if you have re- 
4t c ceived an injury why cannot you forgive ?' and, 
u ' fuppofe Mr. and Mrs. Meade are the injured pcrfons, 
* £ '&c.' This would be very proper language to be ufed in a 
€C cafe where injury may be fuppofed to have been mutu- 
cc ally received, and where the interpoling parties, after a 
c * general knowledge of particulars, might not be able to 
" agree from what fide conceffion fhould come. In fuch 
C£ cafe mutual forgivenefs and general oblivion would point 
" themfelves out as the neceffary and proper expedients, 
" and that party would be deficient in Chriftian charity 
<c who hefitated to adopt them. But if Mr. Stevens had 
" fet out in this bufinefs in confiftency with the character 
" he afiumes, he would have known that fuch expedients 
" did not apply to the cafe in hand; and this language 
" upon it confequentiy, admitting Chriftian charity in its 

* Mr. Daubeny has two favourite expreffions for hintfelf and for 
others — " His chcircifter" and " the world" No man is more 
jealous of his character. His fears for it enter into every letter./ 
It is an argument to juftify all he does, and to condemn all that 
others do. But if any one elfe feel for his own character, then 
Mr. Daubeny exclaims, that that perfon regards the world only* 
While he himfelf looks further I 



APPENDIX. 



225 



fc utmofl extent, would have been very different from whai 
({ it now is. To the tenour, therefore, of Mr. Stevens's 
ce letter, I am reluctantly conftrained to anfwer thus: — If 
<s I am called on to forvive Mr. Meade, injury on my 
<f part mull have been received from him. Taking the 
ec fubjeel on this ground, and placing the Gofpel before 
<c us, a proper acknowledgment of the injury conflitutes 
(e theneceflTary prelude to forgivenefs. Should, after fuch 
Ci acknowledgment has been made, forgivenefs he with- 
c * held, the party injured certainly does not forgive as he 
" hopes to be forgiven.* But Mr. Meade has placed him- 
" felf on the ground of the injured party, and has been 
" engaged for ten years at the expence of my character 
" in flrengthening himfelf in the public opinion. f Should 
<( that ground therefore be found ground, I, as the inju- 
" ring party, have nothing to forgive. But, Sir, I feel 
(( myfelf {landing on the unfhaken ground of innocence. 
s * Againft that innocence Mr. and Mrs. Meade have wil- 
(( fully and groflly finned. It was in my power to have 
put them both to fhame in the fame court, J from the 

* This language is furely immodeft at leaft, in that perfoa 
againft whom a court of juftice had decided ! and it is plainly a per* 
verfion of Mr. Stevens's argument. 

f Mr. Daubeny might fufpecl that if Mr. Meade has the public 
opinion with him, he muft have better fupport than his own efforts. 
Mr. Daubeny had the advantage of friendfhips that are ufually 
formed at fchool and college | he has the influence derived from 
great property, and the fupport of families and relations interefted 
in his character; while Mr. Meade's natural interells were in another 
country. If Mr. Daubeny is in this cafe rejected, and Mr. Meade 
pnr.e&edby the public opinion, the former may affign a more pro- 
pable caufe for it than he has done, 

% Is it not paft comprehenfion, that Mr. Daubeny, aware of the 
kt.uauon in which he ftood, moulds fuffer the difgrace of his owa 

Q 



226" APPENDIX. 

<c ignorance of which they derived their projected advan* 
" tage. I forgave my injurers fo far as to feek no redrefs 
sc againit them ; becaufe the confequence of the remedy 
66 that mull have been reforted to for the pnrpofe, made 
** a ftronger impreflion on my feelings, than I trufted the 
" temporary advantage gained againft me would be able 
" to make on the minds of thole to whom the uniform 
< ( confiftency of my character was known. If I have 
(( been deceived in this refpect, it has not been for want 
* of character on my part, but for want of judgment in 
" others to appreciate it. Having thus pradtifed, fo far 
se as they relate to this fubject, the hardeft Chriftian doc- 
ce trines, of paffive obedience and n.on-refiftance in bear- 
C( ing patiently what it has been the will of God to lay 
te on me; you will not judge me indifpofed to proceed 
tff even further, fhould Gofpel authority be produced, call- 
66 ins: on me to do fo. 

to 

" To myfelf howeVer I appear to have acted fully up to 
u the Gofpel ltandard on this occafion.* I have forgiven, 
" fo far as forgivenefs can be practifed on my part. To 

character, in order to fave that of another, whom at the fame time 
he reprefented as unworthy of regard? Is this conliftent with the 
experience of mankind; or is it reconcileable with facts? For if 
actions be taken as evidence of the mind, all Mr, Daubeny's are in 
direct contradiction to his pretentions. Indeed it mull appear an 
incredible thing, (as obferved by Lord Ellenborough on a late trial) 
"that a man mould ia£ give up his own reputation out of tendernefs. 
for another'sf'and immediately afterwards endeavour to dellroy that 
peribn's reputation, and expect that the world would receive his, 
word as the proof! 

* Does not Mr. Daubeny mifunderftand " the Gofpel ftandard l n 
■ Is he the fearcher of hearts? Is confelTion to be made to him, and 
forgivenefs to be granted by him ? Is he to be the judge in Ms o<wn 
'caufe; or c.n earthly contentions be ever made up, if his doctrine 



APPENDIX. 



22? 



ft receive Mr. Meade with his verdict in his pocket, and 
his ftory in his mouth, would be to fubferibe to the 
"juftiee of the one, and to acknowledge the truth of the 
other. This I conceive would not be Chr-iftian charity, 
u fo much as Christian follj/. It would be for injured 
4< innocence to chain herfelf to the car of triumphant 
4 * guilt, for the purpofe of contributing to the more com- 
(( plete celebration of ill-acquired fame. 

* c Adieu, your's fincerely, 

f* Feb. 23, 1803. CHARLES DAUBENY." 

William Stevens, Efq; to the Rev, Charles 
Daubeny, 

(C Reverend Sir, 

ff I HAVE received your long letter, to which it is not 
cc my intention to write a long anfwer. I perceive that 
<( what I faid in my two former letters has been to no 
66 purpofe ; and I have no reafon to expect better fuccefs 
i( from any thing more I can fay. I {hall only juft obferve 
" that when you afTert you were reftrained by delicacy to 
** Mr. and Mrs. Meade from expofing their characters and 
(< vindicating your own at the trial, people will.be apt to 
€e exclaim, w Credat Judaua dpdla!" for certainly, 
" befides the improbability of a man facrifieing his own 
* ( character out of compliment to his adverfary, the truth 
* f of the affertion is ill-confirmed by your fubfequent con^ 
* ( duel, which has been induftrioufly to fpeak all manner 

be admitted ? The reader will judge for himfelf, whofe fectiment 
and expreffion are rnoft confjftent with *< the Gofpel ftandard 
Mr. Stevens's, of " Chriltian charity j" or Mr. Daubeny's, q£ 
u Christian folly. 

a 2 



228 



APPENDIX. 



< f of evil againfl them, to reprefent them as groffly guilty 
* c of wilful perjury, and their caufe as the caufe of infamy 
(c and falfehood. Seeing thefe things are fo, how comes 
i( it to pais that you can accufe them, without condemn- 
€( ing yourfelf? or by what enchantment can you perfuade 
iS yourfelf you are the only injured perfon, when you have 
6S done infinitely more to traduce their characters, than I 
* c ever heard of their doing to traduce yours ? Were I 
ee difpofed to recriminate, I might adopt your language to 
6e me, and complain, * that you wilfully perfift in limiting 
€C c your eyes againfl the light/ But I forbear. Liberavi 
ie animam meam. If you can with truth fay the fame^ 
" I give you joy, and take my leave. 

"Feb. 26, 1803. Your's, Wm. Stevens." 

This correfponcjence being conlidered by Mrs. Meade's 
friends as particularly interefting, it was advifed that hep 
mother fhould fee it, and {he accordingly fent it to he^ 
with a letter to the following purpofe. 



Mrs. Meade to Mrs. Barnston. 

— After earneftly calling her attention to Mr. Stevens's 
letters, and reminding her how he flood efteemed and 
regarded in the family, me added, " Tf you will permit 
€< me to go to you, I will do it with a heart full of grati- 
^ tude and love ; I will throw myfelf at your feet to im- 
<■< plore your bleffing on myfelf and on my children; and 
f * when I folemnly declare that I feel no other fentiment 
u than of good-will towards all my relations, I am ready 
* c to teftify it by every act of kindnefs in my power. To 
u my fiilers I open my heart in love; and to Mr, Dauben^ 



APPENDIX. 



259 



<c I offer the hand of a filler in friendfhip, and beg that 
" we forget for ever the paft, and forgive as we hope to be 
" forgiven. If his character fuffers, I am truly forry for 
" it. If the remembrance of a law-fuit is painful to him, 
* c I can with truth declare, that it was entered upon with 
" bitter reluctance, and has been a matter of equal concern 
« f ever lince. If he thinks, as I hear, that we ftrive to 
Ci injure his character, it is a cruel mifreprefentation ; for 
ec if our acquaintances were permitted to meet each other, 
<( they would foon make it appear that Mr. Meade and I 
f( never fpeak on the fubje£t, unlefs fome neceffary or 
<c friendly object is in view. Let us then, my deareft 
<( Madam, aifemble round you, and with a kifs of love 
" and charity bury the paft in everlafting oblivion. Do 5 
" for God's fake, ufe your influence with Mr. Daubeny. 
<( 1 implore you by the memory of my dear father, and 
c< of poor Mr* Sikes, who but a fortnight before he died 
<e wrote to me, that if he could fee us friends again, it 
€i would be the happieft day of his life. Conflder well the 
€C melancholy example of your numerous grand-children 
'* being bred up in hereditary averfion, without even 
ec knowing each other. One word, it feems, is brought 
Cf forward as a bar to charity, and a juftification of our 
<e everlafting feparation; the word^ restitution* On this 
* f occafion, when I am foliciting peace and reconcilement, 
t will avoid every expreffion of blame or of justification* 
cc But I will quote the fentiments of a divine, who wrote 
cf on this very point a hundred years ago: c If any one 
(( i offend, the evil is with him, and he has moll caufe to 
" 4 be troubled. Little injuries mould not move us; if 
.*? c great, there is more magnanimity in forgiving, for it 
" * is the glory of a. man to pafs over a tranfgrefiion, We 



£30 



APPENDIX. 



c muft forgive one another, as God for Christ's 
f* c lake forgives us. But who is to go to he reconciled, 
** c the offender or the offended? BOTH, that reconcile- 
" 6 ment may be fure. If restitution be firft required, 
c( c if prefent fatisfa&ion be demanded, we mould rather 
u e chide our unbelieving hearts that cannot wait till that 

c day, when it will be better for the offended, and worfe 
iC £ for the offender, if it be not done before. —Vengeance 
" 6 is mine, I will repav, faith the Lord. Our part is 
* s £ both to forgive, and to pray God to forgive; to ex- 
" c hort our enemy meekly, to tell him of his fault, and 
* e 6 then to win him to friendfhip by kindnefs.' 

" I am, Sec. Catherine Meade.**" 

To this letter no anfwer* being for fome days returned, 
Mrs. Meade refolved to go to her mother's houfe, and 
ftrengthened herfelf to bear the agitation it muff give to 
her fpirits, by the reflection that it was the only effort fhe 
was confeious of having omitted. She took the oppor- 
tunity of Mr. Daubeny's abfence from Bath, and hearing 
at her mother's door that fhe, with Mrs. Mary Barnfton, 
was in her apartment above, Mrs. Meade walked up, and 
tapping at the door, Mrs. M. Barnfton opened it, and 
pulhed her away inftantly, faying, c< you fhali not come in." 
tf I infift on feeing my mother.' ec You mall not, you 
C€ will kill her." 6 I come to relieve, not to diftrefs her; to 
6 let her fee a once-loved daughter imploring her blefling/ 
ff< You cannot and you muft not fee her now ; fhe is ill, and 

has juft taken medicine; you will hurt her greatly; do 

* An anfwer was in the poft at the time Mrs. Meade went to 
her mother's — in the old ftile of rejection ; it was written by Mrs. M, 
Barnfton, but manifeftly not her competition. 



APPENDIX* 



231 



(C pray come clown, and talk with me below ; you shall 
" fee her another time." Mrs. Meade then walked down 
with her filter to the drawing-room ; " if you will give it 
" up now, you shall fee her I aflure you/' faid her fifter. 
f When ?' "I will write to you this night, and fix the 
(S time/' 6 But will it be in Mr. Daubeny's prefence?' 
" It muit, my mother will nototherwife fee you." c Then 
f I will see her now/ 6i Nay then you (hall fee her 
Ci alone/' 6 Promife me that, and I will give it up now/ 
" I do promife,— at leaft that I will do all I can for it." 
Mrs. Meade returned immediately to her own houfe in 
the country; and the fame evening Mrs. M. Barnfton 
fent for Mr. Daubeny from North-Bradley, who came in 
consequence to Bath, and early the next morning Mrs. 
M. Barnfton wrote to Mrs. Meade. 

Mrs. Mary Barnston to Mrs* Meade, 
(C Dear Sifter, 
€C My mother has appointed to-morrow or Saturday,, 
€< at one o'clock, to receive you, 'for the purpofe of con- 
< c vincing you, that me has perfectly forgiven your 
u pall conduct, fo far as fhe as a mother has been con- 
<c cerned in it; which fhe has told you over and over 
€< again many years ago. But if you do not come accor- 
i( ding to this appointment, my mother infifts upon it 
(i that fhe may not be broken in upon in that unfeeling 
" manner in which you would have done it yefterday, 
" had it not been prevented* In cafe therefore you do 
" not come according to this appointment, my mother 
<f fays fhe will not be feen. Pleafe to fend an anfwer by 
" the bearer, I am your's, in great hafte, 

"Mary Barnston." 



232 



APPENDIX. 



Mrs. Meade's Anfwer. 
« Dear Sifter, 
c* I WILL wait on my mother to-morrow at the ap- 
€( pointed hour. The ftile of your letter {hews me but 
i( too clearly the ftate of your mind. However I will do 
" my part. Your affectionate lifter, 

"Sept. 1 5 1803. Catherine Meade." 

On the 8th of September, Mrs. Meade, accompanied 
by her youngeft child whom her grandmother had never 
feen, went into Bath, and on her arrival at her mother's 
houfe, was (hewn by a fervant into a room, where, inftead 
of her mother, fhe found Mr. Daubeny alone. Little 
prepared for fuch a meeting, but afiuming a fuitable 
degree of fpirit, to the cold intimation of Mr. Daubeny, 
" You are to fee you mother, Madam, alone," fhe replied, 
s Am I? T am glad of it.' " I will let her know you are 
" here," faid he ; and retiring for a few minutes, he re- 
turned, and again faid coldly, (e you may walk up flairs 
ee now, Madam." But on Mrs. Meade's taking her 
child by the hand to conduct her to her mother, Mr. 
Daubeny delivered the child to a fervant to be kept down 
ftairs, while he accompanied Mrs. Meade himfelf to her 
mother's apartment. 

The fpirits of Mrs. Meade being much agitated, it was 
with difficulty fhe could fupport herfelf till (he reached 
the chair of her mother. She fell on her knees before 
her, and her mother, putting her arms on her neck, prefled 
her, and cried, " Oh ! my child, my dear long-loft child. 
"Oh!"andfell back in agonies. Mrs. Meade overcomearad 



533 



finking, was led out of the room, and found herfelf in an 
adjoining apartment with Mr. Daubeny and a ftran'ge 
lady, who flic thought might be one of Mr. Daubeny's 
daughters, not having feen them from their childhood. 
On her recovery and return to her mother's room, her lifter 
Mrs. Daubeny immediately faid to her mother, (c Now, 
iC Madam, fay what you have to fay, and let her be gone. 55 

* I have nothing to fay/ me replied feebly; and on 
Mrs. Meade's looking earnedy at her, and obferving 

* how much fhe was changed in twelve years ;' (being 
deaf, very weak, and almoft blind ;) " Changed ! how 
<c changed ?" faid Mrs Daubeny, " there is no change. 53 

Thefe circumdances, chilling as they were, and dis- 
couraging, did not alter Mrs. Meade's determined mind; 
but fhe exprefled the mod earned entreaties, 6 that all the 
' pad ihould be forgot, and family peace redored/ (( It 
* c depends on yourfelf, Madam," faid Mr. Daubeny. "As 
sc long as Mr. Meade has his verdict in his pocket, and 
<c you your dory in your mouth, there can be no farther 
fc reconcilement;" with other ofFenfive expreffions, which 
induced Mrs. Meade to reply, " that fhe came there for 
Cf peace, not to be infill tedy nor prepared to argue." Mr. 
Daubeny held in his hands a pamphlet, and began a loner 
fixing of charges and complaints, from parts he feemed to 
have noted; and Mrs. Meade, who had previoufly deter- 
mined to confine herfelf to foliciting reconcilement with 
her mother, and had no expectation of an opponent, was 
equally unwilling and unprepared to difpute with him; 
but hearing him ufe arguments to prevent reconcilement, 
which {he knew to be unjuft, die could not help pointing 
out their fallacy, and flattered herfelf (agitated though die 
was) that die had done it fuccefsfully in a great degree} 



234 APPENDIX. 

although the two ftrange ladies, whom Mrs. Meade ima- 
gined might be her nieces, always nodded affent to him, 
or expreffed it by iC certainly, certainly " Mr. 
Dauberiy, however, continued fhifting his ground; and 
with volubility of plaulible expreffions contriving to 
keep the leading points out of fight, he ftill urged 
againft Mrs. Meade all his old arguments, which had been 
often anfwered. He charged Mr. Meade with calumni- 
ating him, and me peremptorily denied it. 6 He pre- 
judiced Admiral Stanhope againft me,' faid Mr. 
Daubeny. 94 No : the Admiral declared, on his honour, 
ec that he never heard your name from Mr. Meade until 
<c you and your friends had put him in full poffeffion of 
ec your ftory; and then he wrote to Mr. Meade." c But 

* you must admit that he poifoned Dr. Falconer againft 

* me/ " Mr. Meade had never feen one of Dr. Falco- 
" ner's family, when they had made up their minds on 
" the fubjecV' faid flie. < Who poifoned theBifhop of 
6 Durham's mind?' " Not Mr. Meade," faid ftie, 
<c nor any of his friends. His Lordfhip fays, that it was 
Qe you who infifted on his reading your papers \ which 
cf when he had done, he thought proper to read thofe 
" on the other fide, and then decided. But," faid Mrs. 
Meade, €e it is unfortunate that th,e zeal of friends is 
" fo intemperate: there is the mtfchief. Two ladies, 
€< friends of yours, having dined lately with fome neigh- 
<c bours of ours in the country, among whom Mr. 
<c Meade was fpoken of with regard, thought proper to 
a attack his character and mine with fuch invectives, that 
" their friend with whom they dined, unwilling to hear 
** it, put a ftop to the fubjecl: altogether." c Who were 

* the ladies V faid Mr. Daubeny. & I don't know them," 



APPENDIX. 



235 



faid Mrs. Meade; u they are my mother's next-door 
" neighbours, the Mils Mafons." Some furprize being 
teftified by the whole party, one of the Grangers looked 
up and faid, c< we mult take (hat on ourfelves, Madam." 
A fpeech which it may be well imagined ailonimed 
Mrs. Meade. 

During the whole interview, Mrs. Barnflon, and her 
eldeft daughter Mrs. Mary Barnfton, took no part. Mrs. 
Daubeny frequently faid that it was time her mother 
mould have her dinner, and that (lie would be exhauiled 5 
and whenever Mrs. Meade attempted to fpeak to her mother, 
me flopped her, faying, i( that the muft not be agitated;" 
and when Mrs. JVleade defired to bring up her child, both 
Mr. and Mrs. Daubeny prevented it for the fame reafon, 
Mr. Daubeny, through the whole fcene, appears to have 
a&ed with much addrefs, endeavouring to entangle or to 
feduce Mrs. Meade into fome acknowledgment favourable 
to himfelf, by holding out to her the affection of all her 
mother's houfe as an incitement. At one time he was mild 
and calm, at another peremptory. But the point he moll 
laboured at was to perfuade Mrs. Meade to admit that what 
{he depofed relative to Dr. Blayney and Mr. Coham was 
falfe. 6C Do you want me to proclaim myfelf," faid Mrs. 
Meade, " a perjured wretch, and to falfify all thofe who 
" bore teftimony to my truth ?" 6 1 never faid/ he replied, 
* what you fwore; and how could you pretend to remember 
f it?' " I could never forget it," faid me. u Tohear, as you 
se told me, that Mr. Meade's two clofeft friends gave him. 
" up, was the mod alarming account I could hear. I made 
<c a minute of it, as I had been ufed to do for many years, 
sc in my journal. I wrote inftantly to Mr. Coham, al- 
ce though I had never taken that liberty before, to intreat 



236 



APPENDIX. 



• f him to fatisfy my honour and my happinefs, by fully 
*' explaining to me the grounds on which he gave up 
** the caufe of his friend ; and Mr. Coham bore tefti- 
" mony to this, in his laft illnefs, in a letter to my mother. 
tfc I wrote an account alfo of the circumftance to Mrs. 
* e Gunning, and my letter ftill exifts. I mentioned it 
(i alio in my letters and otherwife to my relations, and 
sc I related it confcientioufly when examined on my 
€C oath." And me added, " that fne never made any 
4C charge againft Mr. Daubeny, nor afcribed to him mo- 
ft tives or inventions; having merely fpoken to fa&s, 
" as me heard them from him, and which on her oath 
(e {he was bound to relate — that as he had told her he 
cc heard them from others, fo {he ftated. That (he did not 
cc imagine he would have denied it: and Ihe repeated 
" again and again, that having appeared in court a moft 
" reluclant witnefs, fhe confined herfelf to facets, and im- 
" puted no motives to him, much lefs malicious ones/* 
Mr. Daubeny then faid twice, 4 Mrs. Meade, mark me $ 

* I acquit you of wilful perjury, or malice of intention.* 
cc Do you," faid me; " then let us make hands, (which 
ec he did ;) there can be no ground now for enmity, or 
cc family feparation." * Oh! that depends ftill on you $ 
6 you muft unsay what you have faid.* Mrs. Meade 
urged in vain the impoffibility of it. Mr. Daubeny per- 
fevered; and the two ladies, having unfortunately taken up 
his opinion, always agreed with him. 

Mr. Daubeny, during the converfation, had aflertedy 
c that the late Bifliop Mofs, after a full inveftigation of the 
4 cafe, with all neceffary documents, had declared Mrs. 

* Meade to be a perjured woman.' But this gave her no 



APPENDIX. 



237 



great perfonal concern, as {he knew that hisLordfhip had 
folly and fufficiently denied the fact. 

But another affertion of Mr, Daubeny's, which was 
afterwards proved to be equally unfounded, filled her in- 
deed with aftonifhment; namely, c that Dr. Blayney had 

* changed his fentiments refpeeting their caufe.' And 
on Mrs. Meade exprefiing furprife, and faying, " the 
" account was new to her j" he replied, c that the Doctor 

* had written to him to that effect very {hortly before 
f his death.'* 

The party feeming impatient to clofe the fcene, and 
nothing farther remaining to be done, Mrs. Meade at 
length got up, and willing to leave nothing untried that 
might work upon fitters, fhe went to Mrs. Mary Barnfton, 
offered her hand, and kifled her. She did the fame to her 
lifter Mrs. Daubeny ; and then went to her mother, who 
again threw her arms about her in great agitation, praying 
God to blefs her. Mr. Daubeny and the Mifs Mafons 
walked down with her, and during the few minutes fhe 
remained in the room, where me had left her child, thev 

* Dr. Blayney's widow, on hearing the ftory, wrote the following 
note to Mr. Meade : " It has been inftnuated, as I am told, that 
P there was fome change in the fentiments of Dr. Blayney, a ftiori 
" time before his death, relative to the unfortunate difference be- 
w tween Mr. Meade and Mr. Daubeny; and that he expreffed as 
" much in a letter which he is faid to have written on the occafion ; 
" I own I feel myfelf hurt at this uncandid attempt to impute opi- 
" nions to him now, which, if it had pleafed God to fpare his life, 
" he would havereje&ed with indignation. He never varied in his 
** opinion relative to Mr. Meade's caufe and conduct ; both had his 
« warmeft fppport and .approbation, as long as he was capable of 
*' thinking and acting. Every fentiment of his heart was open to 
" me ; and it is but juftice to his memory to declare-, that if it. is 
u pretended that he altered his opinion on the above occation, fuel] 
P fuggeftioa I believe to be utterly without foundation." 



33S- 



APPENDIX. 



ihewed her all humane attentions. Mrs. Meade, pleafcd 
on the whole with the advance {he had made towards her 
mother, went to tell her aunt Ravenhill of it, who was 
rejoiced equally with herfelf; as were her other relations 
'and friends. But their hopes were of fhort duration. The 
nest day brought a letter by exprefs from Mrs. Mary 
Barnfton, as follows : 

" Dear Sifter, 
" My mother has defired me to fay, that you muft now 
tc be content with her perfonal forgivenefs, which is all 
" as a Chriftian me has to give. She fays, juftice muft be 
<& done to her character, and to my brother's,! before you 
" can be received in the family; nor can it anfvver any 
tc purpofe, but that of unneceftarily difturbing her peace. 
" She defires, moreover,* that your children may not be 
* c fent; as that can anfwer no purpofe, while their mother 
fi€ is not received. T write this to prevent the difagreeable 
i6 circumftance of your being refufed admittance; my 
c * mother having ordered it to be fo. Happy fhould we 
t c all be, if the family could be brought together; but you 
* have been told on wdiat terms alone that can be done. 

* c I anx, your affectionate lifter, 

« M. Barnstgn." 

+ This pafTage and the whole of the letter refute the falfe and 
fliocking aiTertion, " that Mrs. Meade had made a confeilicn of her 
own guilt, and juftified Mr. Daubeny." It is plain that me had not 
complied with their terms, which were, that me mould confefs. 
And the Bifhop of Lincoln has fupplied another proof that me made 
no fuch confeffions : for his Lordmip relates, " that when Mr* 
« Daubeny told Mrs. Meade, in prefence of her mother, that he 

could have recovered the verdict, and proved her perjured fhe 
replied, " And 'why did you not?" Exprefiing, furely, by thefe 
words, indignation rather than confeflion ! 

* Mr« Daubeny's favourite expreffion 



APPENDIX. 



The bearer of the foregoing letter intimated that he 
was to make hafte back; as a gentleman, who was going 
that night towards Trowbridge, only waited in Bath for 
the anfvver. But Mrs. Meade knowing that gentleman to 
be Mr. Daubeny, faid, <e there was no anfvver then." 
The next day, however, {he wrote as follows : — • 

« Dear Sifter, 

ce I received your letter with great concern, not lefs on 
"your account than my own. When you forbid me and 
cc my children to go to my mother's houfe, if we would 
" avoid the pain of being refufed admittance, can I be- 
<( lieve that my deareft mother ever uttered fo unfeeling a 
"command? I know the tendernefs of her nature too 
u well to think me could do it of herfelf, and her recep- 
cc tion of me the day before you wrote, is a fufficient 
Cf contradiction of fuch cruelty. When me threw her 
(e arms about me, and called me * her dear long- lost 
" * child,' was this tendernefs accompanied w ith re- 
€C proaches or feveritv? When {he was called upon by my 
ce (ifter Daubeny to fay what (he had to fay, and to let 
(e me begone, s {he had nothing to fay but praying God 
ce 6 to blefs me;' and when I took my leave, her embraces 
cc were of the warmeft affection. You once faid, (to 
"justify your behaviour to me) 6 that it was your duty 
<e c to follow your mother's example.' Why did you not 
S( do it then ? The acknowledgment of Mr. Daubeny 
" deprived you even of a pretence for unkindnefs to me; 
<( for he exprefsly acquitted me of 6 malice or intentional 
« 1 wrong.' Where then is there any criminality? Is 
* c not the intention alone all that the fevereft judge can 
* condemn ? But innocence gains nothing for me. After 



240 



APPENDIX. 



€% rmmberlefs felicitations, I once intwelve years made an 
" effort to fee my mother; and I gave it up at that time, 

as you well know, only becaufe you pledged your word 
€( to me that I mould fee her alone in a day or two; at 
" leaft that you would do all in your power to effect it. 
^ You bed know how you performed your promife. But 
&e admitting it not to have been in your power, was it 
u candid and fifterly, was it doing as you would be done 
" by, not only to difappoint my anxious whiles, hut to 
^ let me go without previous notice into the llrange fcene 

that was prepared for me ? In the firft room I entered 
* c I found only Mr, Daubeny, who flilj kept up the de- 

Jufton, by telling me k that I was to fee my mother 
" c alone.' What this meant, I cannot tell. It is true* 
<( that when I entered the room where my mother was 5 
€i I thought of nothing but the errand on which I came. 
*' This errand was for peace and reconcilement. Why 
<e then was I checked, the moment I attempted to fpeak to 
" her? Why was fhe not fuflered to receive a grand- 
* e child, whom fhe had never feen? When I looked for 
i( tendernefs in my lifters, why, alas! did 1 find in them 
<c fevere opponents, with impatience and averfion } If 
" witneffes were wanting to this meeting, why were not 
fS the relatiqns of our family, our peace-making friends, 

called in ? But for Grangers to be introduced at fuch a 
< ff time, and on fuch an occafion, is a circumftance that 
* c I believe never before happened. For what purpofe 
4S they came, they beft can tell-; perfons, who in the com- 
* c pany of our neighbours had already taken upon them 
* c to inveigh with feverity and decifion againft t^s, whom 
^ they had^ never feen. Thefe ladies had taken their 
^ places in my mother's room^ feeming to be there 



APPENDIX. 



241 



"judges, appealed to by Mr. Daubeny on every occafion, 

" and always implicitly according with him, and afktng 

" queftions as his advocates. In the agitation of my 

et fpirits their prefence gave me little concern; I only 

<c thought the introduction of ftrangers did not hold out 

<( a promifing afpect for effecting family reconcilement. 

"Yet notwithstanding all thefe discouragements, I had 

<c the comfort of being received to the bofom of my deareft 

" mother, with expreffions that are engraved on my heart> 

<c and without one word of feverity or prohibition. When 

<c a command then comes the next day under your hand, 

" with notice that I and my children are to be turned 

<c awSf^from my mother's door, if we ever appear there 

" again, I proteit againft fuch a command, as not hers; 

" as unjuft to me, inconfiflent with her conduct, and 

" mocking to nature. You too> to convey it to me ! You, 

" who reproached me but the other day with feandalizing 

" my mother for faying that fhe ever turned me from her 

" doors. No! when my mother fees and hears me, and 

" then thinks proper to lay on me any commands, I will 

<c dutifully obey her. At the fame time, when I reflect 

C( on her age and infirmities, which naturally render 

C( her dependent on thofe that furround her, who* are 

(i conftantly urging every argument againft me, and not 

M one word for me ; then I confider it a mercy of Provi- 

(C dence, that fhe had kindnefs and refolution to fay what 

<c me did. It is a balm to my heart, which will give me 

(C comfort while I live. As to the terms on which alone 

6i lam offered reconcilement, they are held out to delude, 

ee becaufe you muft know them to be impracticable. My 

<c oath, the folemn oath of an innocent woman, is as valid 

66 as that of the raoft facred character. You have my 

ii 



242 



APPENDIX. 



€( letter of last Chriftmas two years, after just receiving 
6€ the facrament, confirming it. You faw Mr. Coham's 
sc letter to my mother, written almoftwith his dying hand, 
" confirming my oath. You know too that every con- 
€C current circumftance eftablifhes the certainty of my 
(C evidence ; and if it were neceflary, I could now call on 
€( two other witnefTes. Yet you invite me to confefs that 
" I perjured myfelf. And why ? Becaufe Mr. Daubeny 
sc denies what I related ; and his word or memory is proof 
" enough / Is this common juftice ? He himfelf had the 
u candour to admit that he might at times have fpoken 
€C with heat, and with too much earneftnefs, although he 
€C denies it in this inftance. Why Ihould he expect that 
iC I muft be thought wantonly and wickedly perjured, 
<c rather than that his memory mould be queftioned ? He 
" might have heard this (lory as he did others, and re- 
Cf lated it to me as certain ; but finding it falfe, the whole 
(c may have paffed from his memory. Of this, however, 
€e I pretend not to judge. I related facts; T never afcribed 
ff : motives or intentions to him, as he is too apt to do to me. 

cc If you mall be difpofed to addrefs me in terms of 
sc peace and good-will, I mall be happy to forget what is 
(c paft, and to be what a fitter ought to be; but if you 
p rather choofe the ftile of anger, I muft beg you to fpare 
6C yourfelf and me the trouble of farther letters of that 
ec kind ; for it is in vain to demand of me what you know, 
sc as well as I do, to be impoffible to be performed. If 
" you perfift alfo in your plan of rejecting me from our 
s( mother's houfe, of continuing difunion in all our fa-* 
* c mily, and of mewing to the various branches of our 
(C connections, the example of unchriftian averfion ; I do 
€C fincerely pray a that at that tribunal where you and all of 



APPENDIX. 



S43 



" us muft foon appear the meafure of God's dealing to 
" you may be different from your's to me; and that He 
Ci may {hew you that acceptance, which you refufed to 
" your injured fifter, C. Meade," 

In a few days Mrs. Meade received from her lifter a 
letter, which differed little from her former, except in 
being fomewhat more uncivil and unkind. 



Mrs. M. Barnston to Mrs. Meade. 



" Dear Sifter, Bath, Sept, 26, 1803. 

ee Although your letter is written in a ftile as might lead 
* e you to expect no anfwer to it, I ftill owe it to truth and 
(( juftice to proteft againft the grofs mifreprefentation en- 
<c tertained in it, refpe&ing what palled at the interview 
* x with our mother. 

cc I (hall not enter into the particulars, becaufe they 
" are to be eftablifhed by the teftimony of thofe who 
cc were prefent, having been immediately committed to 
€c paper by three different perfons on your departure, and 
<c therefore will at all times fpeak for themfelves. And 
cc the contents of your letter only ferve to prove how ne- 
y ceffary the attendance of proper witneffes was on the 
u occafion. I mail only add, that my mother's orders 
<c refpe&ing your not being admitted again, till you have 
t€ done juftice to injured characters, have been moft ab- 
st folutely given to all her fervants. And I (hall confider 
* it my duty to prevent to the utmoft the peace of my 
" mother from being unneceflarily difturbed. As a fiftef^ 

R 2 



244 



APPENDIX. 



" I cannot help deeply lamenting your continuance in 
C£ wilful falfhoods. I am, &c. 

" M. Barnston."* 

Mrs. Meade thought proper to anfwer this letter, and 
thus ended the correfpondence. 

Mrs. Meade to Mrs. M. Barnston. 

" Dear Sifter, 
u After my last requeft I did hope that you would have 
i( fpared yourfelf and me the pain of writing again in the 
€( fame ftile ; nor can I indeed fee why you have done it 
(e now. The morning after my deareft mother received 
6C me with tendernefs, and gave me her bleffing, you 
i€ wrote to forbid me and mv children from her houfe ; 
" and nowyou only repeat the fame prohibition with fome- 
ic what more afperity. I do not pretend to be unaffected 
C£ by fuch wounds from thofe who were once the deareft, 
f c as they are ft.il! amongft the neareft, of my connections; 
6C but I can with truth fay, that I feel more concern for 
€( thofe who utter fuch infill ts, than I do for myfelf; and 
€( I am fure that in charity you ought not; and as my 
(e filler, you have no right to ufe the unwarrantable lan-' 
sc g ua g e V° u nave done, which is as far from truth as it is 
ee from juftice. I hope, however, that no provocation 
" mall ever draw from me any expreffion unbecoming a 
f< Chriflian. The time will come when you will certainly 
<c wifh that you had acted more as a peace-maker, which 
e< was the character that naturally belonged to you on this 
€e occafion, than fuffered yourfelf to be made ufe of as a 

* To any one accuftomed to the writings of Mrs. M. Barnfton, 
and of Mr. Daubeny, it will be plain enough who coropofed this 

Ikon letter. 



APPENDIX. 



245 



tc party in a quarrel, without reafon or provocation. I 
" told you in my laft letter, what I muftnow repeat, that 
" if you wifli to addrefs me as a filler ought to do, I (hall 
ee be always happy to meet you more than half way, and 
" be ready to forget all that is paft; but if you perfift in 
cc the fame ftile, I requeft and infift upon it, that you 
"fpare me and yourfelf the pain of fuch unnatural cor- 
" refpondence. My time is too much engaged in attend- 
(( ing to a pretty large family, and my health too impor- 
H tant to my children, whofe education is committed to 
" me, to fuflfer my peace of mind to be thus broken in 
(S upon. As to the menage you give me as from my 
" dear mother, I reject it, as I told you before, as not 
(e hers; nor {hall I ever admit or accept any menage as 
<f hers, but fuch as {he delivers to me herfelf, and that 
" when me is free from undue influence. Whatever 
V commands fhe may pleafe to give me under fuch cir- 
(e cumftances, I will moll dutifully obey; but I nroteft 
if againft all others. 

" You mould have received this anfwer fooner, had I 
6( been at home; but after the late fcenes which I had to 
(( go through, T found it convenient both for my health 
<c and fpirits to vifit diftant friends, and your letters fol- 
" lowed me. Under all the treatment I have received, 
<4 I ftill fubfcribe myfelf your affectionate but much- 
a : injured lifter, C. Meade.' 1 

Mr. and Mrs. Meade, now fenfible that no hope re- 
mained of effe&ing reconcilement, gave up all thoughts 
of farther efforts, little fufpecting that this last ftrange 
fcene would be ever quoted by their opponents But they 
foon learned with aftonifhment that Mr. Daubeny and- 
his party were unufually active to turn even this interview 



' APPENDIX* 



to Mrs Meade's diferedit. A flaterrient of it was pre* 
pared; and not only fent to the family, but publicly cir- 
culated with great induftry; and in this ftatement every 
jftep tal^en by Mrs. Meade was condemned, and Mr. 
Daubeny's conduct vindicated; while ftories, in fome 
inftances ridiculous, and which in fa£r. confute themfelves, 
were alTerted with all the confidence of truth. At one 
time it was faid, (i that the jury which tried the caufe was 
ec bribed." Again, < ( that Mrs. Meade confefTed before 
tc her mother and the Mifs Mafons, that (be had actually 
" perjured herfelf at the trial;'* i( that Dr. Blayney had 
tc written juft before his death to Mr. Daubeny, retracting 
* his friendfhip for Mr. Meade;" iZ that Mrs. Barnfton, 
£e by the words long^lost child, meant lost, profli- 
gate, and a^a^dqned ;" " that Mrs. Meade, by 
*f a&ing whether Mr. Daubeny wanted her to proclaim 
* c herself a perjured wretch, meant that she really was 
& so s but that {he was unwilling to hear it proclaimed to 
<e the world." But let thofe who would judge of this 
tranfaclion take a general connected view of its circum^ 
ftances, without regard to prejudiced details of either party. 
Before Mrs. Meade waited on her mother, flie ftated disr 
tinctly the object fhe fought, and the means (he propofec( 
for attaining it ; her letter has been given in a preceding 
page ; and it is hoped that there is not a fentiment in it 
imbecqming a Daughter, a Sifter, and a Chriftian. She 
took with her her youngeft child, that once at leaft in her 
life (he might be prefented to her grandmother ! but it 
was not permitted. Mrs. Meade expected to fee her 
mother alone ; but fhe found her furrounded by hofiile 
parties and partizans. She wrote, and (he declared, " that 
* s fhe went only to implore blefling and peace j'* but no 



APPENDIX. 



247 



lancma^e was heard but of altercation. She was never 
once permitted to addrefs her mother ; nor was a {ingle 
friend or relation of the family apprifed of the meeting ; 
or (he herfelf prepared to meet a party, which appeared 
aflembled to wound her. The pretences ufed to colour 
all this injuftice are manifeft. The ftory of Bifhop Mofs 
is directly contradicted byhimfelf. That of Dr.Blayney 
excited the indignation of thofe companions who lived 
with him till his death, his wife and fifter, who both ex- , 
prefled their indignation at fuch ungenerous miftatements. 
To vindicate a fpecial jury of London merchants from an 
imputation of bribery, would be to degrade them. The 
affertion <e that Mrs. Meade confeffed guilt," is fufti- 
ciently refuted by her accufers themfelves, Thefe and 
many fimilar obfervations will probably not efcape the 
reader, and will help him to form his judgment of the 
parties; nor will he overlook the open acknowledgment 
of the dependence of Mrs. Bamfton on Mr. Daubeny, by 
Mrs. M. Barnfton's writing to Mrs, Meade, " that all 
" future correfpondence and communication between her 
" and her mother muft be directed to him,* and pafs 
" through him'' 

As for the Mifs Mafons^ their opinion of Mr. and Mrs, 
Meade, to whom they are absolute strangers, can be 
conlidered only as Mr. Daubeny's; and nothing could be 
more convenient for him than the zeal of fuch friends, 
Imprefled, as it fhould feem, with a religious perfuaiion 

* " What you have further to fay on this fubject muft be ad- 
" dreffed to Mr. Daubeny, who will communicate it to the family j 
" my mother being turned of eighty-five years, and wifhing to be 

" r e from trouble," Extract of a letter from Mrs. Mary Barn« 

ftonto Mrs. Meade, dated September 6tb, 1804, juft before Mrs. 
Meade's interview with her mother. 



S48 



APPENDIX. 



of his integrity, and fufferings, they fet no bounds to their 
activity in fupport of his caufe, and by fuch means an 
unhappy private family difpute is become a general fub- 
jecl; of converfation, diftra&ing and dividing even friends 
and connexions. It is a Angular fact, that thofe ladies 
were Grangers to Mr. Daubeny until nine years after his 
caufe with Mr. Meade was decided; that is, till within 
thefe three or four years. Yet thefe new friends are the 
perfons whom he has chofen as the depofitaries of his 
family papers. To thefe is committed a trunk full of 
documents, of letters, of notes, and of fcraps, written by 
brothers and fillers in confidence and affection, without 
thought or diftruft, before a poffibility of difunion was 
even fufpe&ed ; but which Mr. Daubeny, with cold fore- 
fight and prudence, fet by, and preferved tor future ufe. 
All thefe papers are arranged, noted, explained, and com- 
mented upon, fo as to anfwer Mr. Daub ny's purpofe, 
and give to them a fenfe which fuits his wi{hes. Thefe 
comments and explanations impofe on a few readers, 
whofe meaning and intention may be good, but who, in 
fupporting or juftifying fuch inflexible conduct, are de- 
luded into a forgetfulnefs of the weighty matters of the 
law, for the end of the commandment is charity. And 
when fuch unchriftian difunion is feen under fuch cir- 
cumfiances between a parent and a child, and between 
other near connexions, what a triumph is given to infidels! 



APPENDIX. 



( D. ) 

TT is with much concern that Mr. Meade fees the name 
of the Bifhop of Durham introduced into this difpute ; 
but thofe who applied to his Lord (hip muft anfwer for it to 
him. The firft intimation Mr. Meade had of his Lord- 
(hip's interference was in the fpring of 1793, when 
Dr. Blayney conveyed to him the following memoran- 
dum* from the Bifhop, who had received fome of Mr. 
Meade's papers from the Doctor, after having firft read 
thofe of Mr. Daubeny. 

(c The Bifhop of Durham wifhed not to have been called 
(e upon by either party, to give an opinion relative to the 
<c unhappy difpute between Mr. C. Daubeny and Mr. 
Ci Meade. The importunity of the former extorted from 
*• the Bifhop a reluctant confent to read his juftification 
(C of himfelf ; and his conduct, on the grounds of his own 
ee ftatement, appeared to admit of vindication. The 
(C Bifhop having thus perufed the evidence on one fide, 
<e thought it but common juftice to enquire what might 
ce be alleged on the other. He has accordingly examined 
(£ all the papers relative to the tranfaction in Dr. Blay- 
" nev's poffeflion, with the impartiality requifite in a 
ce queflion which involves in it the characters of refpect- 
" able men. The feries of letters between Dr. Blayney 
ce and Mr. Daubeny, which thofe papers furnifh, im- 
fi preffes a conviction on the Bifhop of Durham's mind, 



* The original is in Mr. Meade's pofTeilton. 



550 



APPENDIX,, 



46 that the failure of the propo^d accommodation, pre- 
*< vious to the trial, was not owing to Mr. Meade or Dr. 
" Blayney. He is falisned of Mr. Meade's innocence ^ 
*f and of the ftricl honour and integrity of Dr. Blayney 
ec and Mr. Cobam." 

Mr. Meade is ftiil ignorant of the charges which were 
brought againft him before the Bifhop of Durham; he 
prefumes they were ferious, by their u involving cha~ 
* fi vacter" and by the Bifhop declaring his conviction of 
cc Mr, Meade's innocence." But although his Lordfhip 
expreiTed no reflection on Mr. Daubeny, and declared his 
opinion to be formed after a due and impartial enquiry j 
yet Mr. Daubeny appears to have felt fo much refentment 
that a perfon mould be pronounced innocent, whom, he 
had aceufed, that, as the Bifhop informed Dr. Blayney, 
Mr. Daubeny would not fpeakto him afterwards. But 
in December 1798, that is, upwards of five years after ~ 
wards, Dr. Blayney wrote to Mr. Meade as follows :* 66 I 
" was at Mongewell about ten days ago, when the Bi- 
cf mop of Durham told me, that he had been furprifed 
tf with a letter from Mr. C. Daubeny, modeftly defiring, 
€C that he, withjhe Archbifhop of York, and the Bifhop 
ee of London, would commifnon fome clergymen to exa^ 
* c mine into the affair between him and you. The Bifhop 
* c faid that he had put by the letter without an anfwer; 
" and he could not think that any other Bifhop would be 
cc ready to take upon him the re-judging a matter which 
<c had already been determined upon in a court of law. 
" The Bifhop alfo expreffed much furprife and indigna?-* 
ic nation at Mr. Daubeny's applying to him at all 3 after 
* £ what had passed between them" 

* The original is in Mr. Meade's pofleffion* 



APPENDIX. 



23 i 



Mr. Meade bad never feen the Bifhop of Durham; 
but his Lordfhip having liberally fubfcribed to a fmall 
work, which Mr. Meade had tranflated into Englifh, 
and publifhed for a French emigrant, he waited on his 
Lordfhip to prefent a copy to him, and took the oppor- 
tunity of thanking him for the trouble he had in his affairs; 
when his Lordfhip, with much liberality, difclaimed all 
right to thanks, faying, (i that he had only done by Mr, 
¥ Meade an acl: of common juftice." But after a farther 
lapfeof years, Dr. Blayney, the mutual and beloved friend 
of the Bifhop and of Mr. Meade, being dead, and Mr. 
Daubeny having become diftinguifhed as a writer, his 
Lordfhip was again applied to, in 1805, by Mr. Daubeny, 
and induced to lend an ear to his ftory. And Mr. Meade 
has to lament his Lordfhip's being furprifed into a mo- 
mentary forgetfulnefs of his former maxim of the juflice 
and duty of hearing both fides. But Mr. Daubeny not 
only appears to have had powerful advocates with his 
Lordmip; but irrefiftible ftories were related againft Mrs. 
Meade, among which was a bold afTertion," that she had 
" made voluntary confessions of her own criminality 
and another, " that Br, Blayney had declared in Mr % 
" Daubeny* s favour a short time before his death-" 
the confequence of which was, that the Bifhop of Durham 
was fully reconciled to Mr. Daubeny. But his Lordfliip 
at length diftrufling, as it fhould feem, his information, 
fent to Mrs. Blayney to acquaint her with the communi- 
cations which Mr. Daubeny himfelf had made to him of 
the above fafbs, and requeued {he would fatisfy him as to 
the truth of them. In reply to which Mrs. Blayney con- 
veyed to his Lordfhip Mrs. Meade's refutation of the pre- 
tended confeffions; and on her own part {he aflured him, 



252 



APPENDIX. 



" that the ftory related of her latehufband was abfolufefy 
u iratnie." And as it is now pretended that Mr. Daubeny 
only meant to convey the idea, that if the Do&or had 
lived, he would probably have changed his opinions, 
Mrs, -Blayney and Mrs. M. Blayney can teftify that Mr. 
Meade was the laft friend on earth to whom he paid 
avifit; and the phyfician* who attended him in his laft 
ilinefs, will bear teftimony, that the fubje6r. of Mr. Dau- 
i>eny's conduct to Mr. and Mrs. Meade was mu:h talked 
of then in the family, and with the fame fentiments as 
ever. 

The gentleman whom the Bifhop of Durham com- 
miffioned to wait on Mrs. Blayney in his Lordfhip's name^ 
was a refpe&able clergyman, who naturally was happy to 
communicate to Mr. Meade, Qi that the Bifhop of Dur- 
cc h&m, having made enquiry refpecling the afiertions he 
tfC had heard from Mr. C. Daubeny>f exprefTed himfelf 
cc fatisfied that there was no foundation for them.". And 
Mrs. Blayney alfo affured Mr. Meade, "that fcheBifhop's 
e£ mind was perfectly convinced that the ftories were 
" without foundation." 

The hiftory of " the pretended confeffions" has been ex- 
plained in this Appendix. But that refpecting " Dr. Blay- 
ct ney's change of opinion is in all its parts deferving of the 
reader's particular attention ; it being a revival of a for- 
mer method praclifed by Mr. Daubeny to injure Mr. 
Meade, the circumftanees of which it is neceflary to bring 
to the reader's mind. In the year 1792, Mrs. Meade, 
then Mifs Barnfton, being examined in Court as a wit- 
nefs, flated, that Mr. Daubeny fent for her to his houfc, 

* Dr. Falconer, 
f The letters are in Mr. Meade's pofleflion. 



I 



JLPI'KNDIX. 253 

and after laying open to her all the circumstances f of 
<c Mr, Meade's (imputed) guilt," allured her, " that his 
4e caufc was given up by his clofelt friends Dr. Blayneyami 
" Mr, Coham, to whom an account of it had been Tent," 
But this laft ftory being proved to be an invention, and 
Lord Kenvon having particularly noticed it, as marking 
Mr. Daubeny's intentions, and as a fa 61 in which there 
could be no mistake, the latter has for many years directed 
his efforts to get rid of Mrs. Meade's evidence, or to in- 
duce her to give it up. But when mocking charges of 
perjury are fo boldly made againil a religious woman it 
is providential that fhe can ftill confirm her oath by £a£b„ 
At the time when Mr. Daubeny told her that Mr. Meade 
was abandoned by his friends, he was in Ireland, .and 
unconfcious of this attack on him. And although the 
ftory was foon dropt, Dr. Blayney and Air. Coham dis- 
proving it by their open fupport of their abfent friend, 
yet for a time it made a deeper impreffion on Mrs. Meade's 
mind than any thing (he had heard before. After noting 
it in her journal, {he wrote directly to Mrs. Gunning, 
informing her with concern of the circumftance ; and 
Mrs. Gunning wrote* in confequence to Mr. Meade. 
In other letters Mifs Barnfton mentioned it again to Mrs. 
Gunning; and fhe alfo wrote to Archdeacon Coham, 
which fhe had never before done, entreating him for her 
honour and happinefs fake, ec to explain diltinelly why 
4e he had given up his friend." Of this the Archdeacon 
bore teftimony a fhort time before his death, in a letter to 
Mrs.. Barnfton, written, as he told her, Ci to draw the 
£ veil from her mind before it was too late;" declaring to 



* Thefe letters are all in Mr. Meade's poffeflioo. 



254 



jfcPPENBTX. 



her that Mrs. Meade's application to him was made, 
" with trembling and aftoniftiment, a year before a trial 
f* was thought of." Mrs. Meade mentioned the circum- 
ftance at the time to her relations at Haddon ; and {he 
went immediately to her Aunt Ravenhill to enquire whe- 
ther ee {he alfo had heard it from Mr. Daubeny. ,, Will 
any one believe that a woman in her fenfes would have 
done this, if Ihe had heard nothing on the fubject ? In 
fa£t there was not one motive that could induce her to 
invent, if any one could fuppofe her capable of fuch wick- 
ednefs I But Mr. Daubeny did not confine his inform 
mation on this fubjecl: to Mifs Barnfton ; for his friend, 
the Rev. Mr. Hooker, told her the fame ftory, as he heard 
it from Mr, Daubeny, and urged it to her as a weighty 
argument againft Mr. Meade. Mifs Barnfton folemnly 
declared the fact upon her oath, when called on for her 
evidence as a witnefs! And will any one of a ferious 
mind liften to the {hocking charge of perjury, imputed 
to her by that perfon, who was chiefly affected by the 
involuntary teftimony {he bore ? Dr. Blayney and Mr. 
Coham denied with indignation Mr. Daubeny's aflfertion, 
as it refpected them ; and the Judge and the Court faw 
in it manifefl proofs of Mr. Daubeny s intentions; who 
therefore adopts the bold refource of endeavouring to fave 
himfelf, by pronouncing the whole to be perjury ; and 
the proof is, his own word! It is prefumed that it is 
unneceflary to make any reply to this proof, or to the 
argument founded on it ! 

The above ftory about Dr. Blayney and Archdeacon 
Coham was related to Mifs Barnfton by Mr. Daubeny 
in June 1791. And it is a lingular fact, that in Septem- 
ber 1803, he related a iimilar ftory, equally unfounded, 



APPENDIX, 2o3 

of one of the fame perfons, and for a fimilar purpofe, as 
that juft ftated. At the interview Mrs, Meade had witli 
her mother in September 1 803, Mr. Daubeny, preffing 
his arguments againft her with much earneftnels, not only 
made the affertion already mentioned refpecling Bimop 
Mofs, which his Lordfhip has fo pofitively denied; but he 
ventured alio to ftate, 6: that he had liimfelf received a letter 
**' from Dr. Biayney, acknowledging a change in his fen- 
4C tiraents favourable towards him; and the contrary to- 
4C wards Mr. and Mrs. Meade." And on Mrs. Meade's 
expreffing furprife, and declaring it " to be new to her,' 9 
he added, (( that it was very fhortly before his death.''" 
Mrs. Meade naturally related the eircumftance to Mr. 
Meade, and to different friends; as, to Mrs. Lyte's family, 
to the Clergyman of her parifti, to Mrs. Biayney, and 
Mrs. M. Biayney, and others. But the ftory was, like 
many fuch, difregarded by Mr. Meade, until Mr. Champ- 
neys, in about a fortnight, mentioned it to him again with 
much concern, as he had juft heard it from the two Mife 
Mafons, who were prefent when Mr. Daubeny told it to 
Mrs. Meade, in prefence of her mother. Mr. Meade 
then oonudering it ajuftice to himfelf, and to the memory 
of his beloved and honoured friend, to take fome notice 
of it, declared that if fuch a letter could be produced, he 
would give up his verdict, and every thing elfe. But if 
the letter were not produced, (and Mr. Meade averred 
that fuch could not be produced) he ventured to pronounce 
the whole ftory a fabrication. 

Mr. Champneys, feeling a generous intereft in the affair, 
took opportunities of enquiring and converting with the 
Mifs Ma ons' on tbefubject ; and purfued it, until at length 
the whole ftory which they at firft had related with 



255 



APPENDIX. 



triumph and confidence, was giren up altogether as a 
MISTAKE ! Whose mistake it was, is not mentioned. 
But the reader will obferve that the twoVixh Mafons' having 
borne teftimony to the ftory, one was a confirmation to 
the other; as they both, and Mrs. Meade mutually, but 
very unintentionally, confirmed alfo the certainty of each 
other's account; each having feparately communicated 
the fact to their refpective friends.. If any proof were 
wanting on this fubjecl:, the Bifhop of Durham fupplies 
it, for his Lordfhip* acknowledges, " that he also did 
" underftand Mr. Daubeny himfelf to have told him the 
cc fame ftory; that he did in consequence make enquiries of 
ct Mrs. Blayney into the truth of it ; and that he received 
cc an anfwer from her, as has been already ftated by Mr. 
ce Meade;" that is,, denying it with indignation. 

It is true that Mr. Daubeny has perfuaded the Bifhop 
of Durham, that his Lordship also mistook him. But the 
fa&s as related here arefufficient for Mr. Meade's purpofe* 
and the reader is left to form his own judgment! 



* In a letter to Mr. Meade, July 1805. 



AFPENDI*. 



257 



( E. ) 

ON the Sth of March, 1804, Mr. Meade received the 
following letter in Mr. Daubeny's writing, with 
no name to it : — 

ee Mr. Meade is defired to break to Mrs. Meade 
(e the circumftance of our good mother's death. She was 
ce fuddenly feized at dinner, and went off", after fome few 
" hours' painful itruggle, about eleven o'clock the fame 
* c night. The family are all as well as may be expected. 

<f Thurfday morning. — Queen's-Parade." 

In a few days the following notice came without a 
name to Mrs. Meade, in Mr. Daubeny's writing alfo : 

6i Mrs M. Barnfton having delivered a fealed packet, 
cc addrefled to, the Rev. Charles Daubeny and Weftgarth 
<s Snaith, efq; purporting to be the will of the late Mrs. 
e( Barnfton ; they therefore take this earlier! opportunity 
(e of informing Mrs. Meade, that it is their intention to 
" open the faid packet to-morrow morning, between 
fe twelve and one o'clock, at No. 8, in the Crefcent,* 
c< mould Mrs. Meade wi(h to attend on the occalion: or, 
" mould Mrs. Meade prefer it, when the will has been 
" proved in the Commons, they will fend her anattefted 
" copy. 

" Crefcent, Monday morning, March 12, 1804." 

* Mr. Daubeny's houfe. 
s 



APPENDIX. 



Mrs. Meade fortunately declined to accept the offer, as 
ufelefs and diftreffing to her ; although (lie did not at that 
time know, and could not fufpecl:, the wounds fne muft 
have received, if {he had accepted the invitation. 

In two or three days Mrs. Meade received the follow- 
ing letter from Mr. Daubeny; 

" MadaxM, 

ic WE are juft returned from paying our laft office to 
' ei your good mother^ and concluding it may be fatisfactory 
si to receive intelligence on the fubjecl: of her will, I tak€ 

this earliell opportunity of fending it. 

" Your mother has directed the relidue of her property 
cc to be divided into four equal portions, one portion of 
e( which to be paid to each of her three eldeft daughters; 
se and that out of the fourth remaining portion, the fum 

of 8001. with accumulating intereft upon it from the 
" 6th day of June 1792, when the unhappy trial took* 
i€ place, up to the day of her death, mould be firft paid to 
a the Rev. Charles Daubeny ; and the remaining fum 
€c veiled in trull for the benefit of your children. But it 
cc not being in my mind, to receive back more than the 
gc faid fum of 8001. ; and as I mould be forry that your 
ec children had not a beneficial intereft in the will of their 
i( grandmother, I have delired my brother executor to 
se add the fum given to me in the will, under the lhape of 
ic intereft, to what may remain of the fourth divilion of your 
" mother's property, to be veiled in trull for your children, 
" according to the plan laid down in the will. And I 
ee have only to lament, that any event mould have 
t€ rendered this diltinctiou in your mother's will in her 



APPENDIX; 



259 



"judgment neceflary. Your mother's property* amounts 
" to fomewhere about 75001. The legacies to 8601. 

" With best wishes for your happiness, 

u I remain your faithful servant, 

ee Charles Daubeny. 

^ Wednefday morning, Queen's- Parade, March 1804." 

As this letter did not appear to call for an anfwer, Mrs. 
Meade was glad to be lilent. It did not become her to 
rejecl for her children what was not offered to her'choice; 
and to accept from Mr. Daubeny, as a favour, a fmall 
part of her own {hare of her mother's fortune, might be 
conftrued into an acknowledgment of the juftice of her 
being deprived of it, which Mr. Daubeny's letter infinu- 
ated; and the event juftified her fentiments, for in sl 
fhort time me received a letter from Mr. Daubeny 5 in 
which was the following intimation : 

" I fent a letter to you the other day at Chatley, the 
6i purpofe of which was to inform you, that my offer in 

* That the difpofition of this property may be fairly underftood, 
it Hands thus:— To Mrs. M. Barnfton 1660I. To Mrs. Sikes 1660I, 
To Mr. and Mrs. Daubeny 2990L To Mrs. Meade, nothing; 
1270I. of her mare being given immediately to Mr. Daubeny, in the 
two fums of 800I. and in the amount of accumulating intereft upon 
800I. for near twelve years, and the remainder of Mrs. Meade's 
fhare, being fomewhat lefs than iool. for each child, being placed 
in truft for her four children ; of which truft Mr. Daubeny and a friend 
of his are the truftees for nearly fixteen years ; even this trifle re- 
turning to Mrs. Meade's fillers, if the children die under age, Mrs. 
Meade being indeed allowed a life intereft in the income of it, if fh§ 
fliould furvive all her children ; the youngeft of whom was not live 
years old when the will ^vas made. 

S 2 



260 



APPENDIX. 



ee favour of your children not having been accepted by 
<c you, was confidered as rejected; and that in confequence 
a directions had been given to carry your mother's wilL 
c< into regular execution. 

" With best wishes for your happiness, 

cc Madam, your humble fervant, 

" Charles Daubeny." 



To this letter Mrs. Meade replied as follows : 
" Sir, 

<e I HAVE to acknowledge your two letters, It wa3 
€C in the belief that my mother's will was proved, that I 
(C defired a copy of it, which you propofed to fend me; 
iC and the transfer of my father's {lock was of no other 
€e importance, than as I might accept it while I remain 
" in London. To the other parts of your letter, I ima- 
" gined I had nothing to reply. Your letter in March, 
ie informing me of my mother's will, mentioned that you 
<f mould keep the portion of her fortune, which the will 
(C gave to you from me; but that you mould not take 
" intereft on it for twelve years back, which the will alfo 
* e gave to you; that this laft mould remain in the fame 
" truft for my children which the will had made; and 
" that you had inftru&ed Mr. Snaith accordingly. But 
4e as neither my opinion, advice, or confent was alked_, 
jT' nor my acceptance or approbation delired, as my mo- 

ther's will had made a little truft for my children, of 
6€ which I neither knew the nature, nor names of the 
* e truftees, I did not imagine I had any thing to fay ; it 
ce refted with yourfelf to do as you pleafed. 



APPENDIX. 



26l 



" Your letter of laft week informed me of the change 
e( in your intentions, and that you will, keep all that my 
'* mother's will gives to you, intereft as well as principal. 
te Your letter of yefterday repeats the fame. I have only 
" to replv on this determination, as I muft have done on 
" the former, that it refis in your own bread to do as you 
96 pleafe. I am, Sir, &c. 

(S Catherine Meade." 

In the mean time Mrs. Meade wrote to her two fitters, 
Mrs. M. Barnfton and Mrs. Sikes, earneftly deliring a 
return of friendfhip and reconcilement, not knowing what 
effect the death of a mother might have in difpofing their 
hearts towards it. 



Mrs. Meade to Mrs. Mary Barnston. 

cc Dear Sifter, March, 1804. 

ec AFTER the lofs of our beloved mother, which muft 
*' have been particularly felt by you, I mould be glad to 
ic know that you are tolerably well. Let me have the 
(C fatisfaclion of hearing it, and it will be a great pleafure 
(< to me ; great indeed, if you will join with me in for- 
(e getting all that is paft, and uniting with me in love 
" and friendfhip. Nothing that is fifterly and friendly 
" mall be wanting on my part, for I can never feel but as 
(e a filler and a friend towards you. My mother fatisfied 
ce a pecuniary difficulty ; I bow to it with duty and re- 
u fped, for myfelf and my children. I loved and ho- 
(i noured her when living, and I venerate her memory. 



262 



APPENDIX. 



" I hear you talk of paying a vifit to Hackney, but 
cc have not heard when. If you wifh to fee me in Bath, 
xc or if you will come out to Chatley to fee me and my 
tc children, it will be an unfpeakable pleafure to me, for 
" I mall always be, with fincere regards, 

Ci Your affectionate fitter, 

66 Catherine Meade/* 

Mrs. M. Barnston to Mrs. Meade. 

" Dear Sifter, March, 1 804. 

e( I AM obliged to you for your enquiries after my 
(e health, which though far from well, is as I expected i\ 
ee to be, after fuch an event. "With refpect to forge t- 
66 ting all that is paft, I have to fay, that though I am 
u not infenfible of the manner in which I have been 
" treated, yet if what paffed merely concerned myfelf, as 
cc a lifter I feel a fufficient degree of affection to pafs it all 

over, for the fake of that family concord, which has 
<c always been to me moft deftrable. But as a daughter 
cc of an excellent and beloved mother, I owe a duty to 
c 5, her memory, which I mall ever think myfelf bound to 
cc difcharge. I have to lament therefore, which I fincerely 
? tf do, that I cannot keep up connection with a fifter, who 
tc has been the caufe of that mother's character being 
€c groflly mifreprefented, and the peace of an harmonious 
u family being broken. Under thefe circumftances, you 

cannot wonder that I can neither wifh to vifit, or be 
" vifited by you. And I muft requeft that our corres- 
" pondence may ceafe^ as a continuance of it 5 I am foxtf 



APPENDIX. 263 

f* to fay, can anfwer no purpofe, but that of unneceflarily 
" diftreffing me. 

" Believe me, with the fincereft wifhes for your health 
" and happinefs, 

u Your affectionate lifter, 

(i Mary Barnston," 



Although Mrs. Meade well knew, from the ftile of this 
letter, who was the eompofer of it, yet as her fifter adopt- 
ed the fentiments of it, ihe thought proper to give the 
following reply. 

Mrs. Meade's Anfwer to her fifter Mrs. 
Mary Barnston. 

« Dear Sifter, 

si IN my laft letter I addreffed you as a fifter to whom 
ee I had always been tenderly attached, and with whom 
ce I never had any kind of perfonal difference, t wrote 
ce to you, at a time when my health and fpirits were low 
6e enough ; but yet I could not forget what you muft 
(e peculiarly feel on the lofs of our beloved and only 
" parent. What an anfwer have I received ! and what 
66 would I not give to learn that it was the effect of hidden 
ce anger or miftake, and that you wifhed to retract it ! You 
<c fhould ftill find me, what an injured and innocent per- 
ei fon always is, ready to forget and to forgive* But at 
cc pre lent the refpect I owe to my condition in life calls 
" on me to fay, that I never mail obtrude myfelf on 4 
( f fifter who has treated me fo unwarrantably, 



APPENDIX. 



<c If you were poor, or if it mould pleafe God to re- 
ec dace you, you mould find in me a friend and a fitter, 
(% with affections difpofed to comfort yOu as far as I could. 
Ci But you are in a ilate to confer, not to receive favours; 
ff and I thank God, I want none. I never fhall court 
cc your wealth ; and my children fhall be taught to be 
<£ contented with what the affection of my poor fathe r 
<c fecured for them. If inftead of the few hundred pounds 
C€ which my mother's will leaves in truft for my children, 
66 {he had, like my father, made me equal to my lifters, it 
ce would not have added to the love I fhall ever preferve 
iC for her memory. Nor if fhe had paffed us by alto- 
" gether, would it have altered one fentiment of my 
(C affection for her. During twelve years {he never faw a 
" friend of mine. She faw me only once; and then as 
iC at a public meeting. If {he withheld from my children 
fe what by nature they might have expected, it was to 
( * make them pay money, w r hich she thought was their 
55 debt, although in fact neither they, nor any belonging 
(i to u^, had any of it. 

(( Shocked as I am at your letter, I mould not give 
<c myfelf the pain to anfwer it, but that I (hall ever hold 
€< up my hands and my voice againft fuch unjuft accu- 
€e fations as you make. 6 The duty you owe to our 
ff c mother's memory will for ever bind you to keep zip 
" e no connection with a sister who grossly misrepre- 
C( e sented her character.' Oh! fhame, fhame, fifter! 
1* retract that fentence before it is too late; retract it for 
6( your own fake, I charge you. I use her ill! I mould 
" fcorn to anfwer fo barbarous a charge, but to a deluded 
ec lifter. Not one of you did or could love her more than 
<e I did; and her delufion never altered my affection. 



APPENDIX. 



** And do you make he" blefTed memory the foundation 
<c of continuing difunion? Poor dear foul ! she could 
<( utter only bleffings on me and mine. It is but a few 
** months fince you faw me embraced by her, and receiv- 
<e ing thofe blcffings without one fentiment of anger ! 
6( Perhaps you don't know, what I can prove, that she 
(e afterwards repeatedly thanked God that she had 
" seen vie. Tell me now in another letter, e * that I 
cc e was always bad from my childhood /' for fuch has 
ee been aflerted in your name. Tell me, c that from my 
ce e youth I always used you like a dog !' Can you 
C( as a Chriftian hear fuch falfhoods publifhed in your 
cc name? If you delire to know by whom all this is faid, 
ce I will tell you. What a change is this, flnce you were 
cc as a mother f to me ! But let me receive thefe wounds 
tc as trials; and as I bear them, fo I trust they will be 
%e recorded for me. 

" I will not dwell on all the falfhoods which are cir- 
iC culated ; as that f I confefYed guilt before my mother;' 
(e e that {he was unhappy* at feeing me;' 6 that it was you 
(e e who invited the ftrangers into her apartment, when 
(e 6 (he received me;' 6 that Dr. Blayney renounced his 
tx ( friendmip with us juft before his death;' and many 
le others. I am w^ell aware that you are every day more 
fe and more weaned from me and mine by long feparation. 

t Mrs. M. Barnfton is twenty years older than Mrs. Meade. 

* So far is this affertion from truth, that one of Mrs. Barnfton's 
neareft relations in Bath wrote to Mrs. Meade a few days after this 
interview, to give her the " comfort of knowing that her poor 
" mother appeared more tranquil and happy fince me had feen 
" her than for a long time before." The original is in Mr* 
Meade's poffeffion. 



£66 APPENDIX. 

f 6 Yet if your eyes fhould be ever opened to the injuftice 
< ( of your conduct to me, and you fhall be difpofed to 
46 addrefs me as a sister, you mail always find me ready 
" to receive you as fuch. But if you refolve to perfift in 
f( injurious language, I requeft and I infill upon it that you 
* € will not continue to wound and infult me with fuch. 

ce With iincere wifhes for your bappinefs, but in a 
" fentiment very different from that of your letter, I 
#<{ remain always your affectionate filler, 

" Catherinh Meade." 

Mrs. Meade wrote to her fifter Mrs. Sikes in the fame 
ifcile of affection as to Mrs. M. Barnfton, and her an- 
fwer expreffed much attachment; and it could not well 
fee otherwife, for they never had a made of difagreement. 
But ten days elapfing before thatanfwer was given, Mrs, 
Meade was not unprepared for the refult. Mrs. Sike& 
tc declined to keep up any intercourfe with her fifter, left: 
iC it might feem to reflect on their mother, who had not 
" done it." This determination of Mrs. Sikes was truly 
painful to Mrs. Meade; becaufe fhe had always been, 
affectionately attached to her, and to all her children; and 
ihe ever felt the fincereft efteem and fifterly love for 
Mr. Sikes. 

In a few days Mr. Daubeny wrote to Mrs. Meade the 
following letter : 

" Madam, 

" I received your laft letter from London, but deferred 
* c anfwering it till my return to Bath, becaufe it did not 
require an immediate anfwer. At the fame tirjie I 



APPEND fX. 



267 



(< think that fome anfwer fhould be returned to it; be- 
(e caufe it belongs to my character to give a reafon for 
" the change of my intention on the fubjecl: of your 
" mother's will. That intention was certainly commu- 
" nicated to Mr. Snaith then in Bath : he waited only 
<c my official directions to carry it into effect:. When I 
< c communicated that intention to you, I confidered that 
" you had made fuch acknowledgment on the fubject as 
sc might conftitute a ground-work for farther conciliation 
<e in the family, by admitting at the interview which took 
ce place between yourfelf, your mother, two fitters, two 
(< other ladies, and myfelf, about fix months before your 
(e mother's death, e that you had gained a verdict for 

c Mr. Meade by your notoriously false evidence; 9 
66 concluding, however, e that though obliged to admit 
(f e this to be fact, ftill you would never allow yourfelf to 
u e be a perjured woman, becaufe you had no malicious 
ee c intention againft me.' The prominent parts of your 
" evidence in court were on this occaflon detailed before 
u you, and fuch you muft remember was your conclufion 
< e on the whole of it. To which my anfwer was, that 
iC the diflinction between wilful falfe fwearing and per- 
< e jury was too nice a one for me to find out; all that I had 
if to do was, with the effecl: of your evidence; and this, 
c * the duty I owed to myfelf and family, called on me to 
€C counteract, at leaft as far as circumftances would permit, 
" To the particulars of this interview you need not be 
* ( told, that the two ladies prefent are ready to bear their 
" mod decided teftimony. This interview having taken 
<c place, I felt particular fatisfaction on the fubject of 

your mother's will, becaufe it furnifhed me with an 
ff opportunity of returning good for evil., and of convin^ 



5'6S APPENDIX. 

" cing you in the moft linking way what iny difpofition 
" towards you was. The conclufion drawn from the letter 
66 written to you on this occaflon, I nattered myfelf would 
66 have been, that after the conceffions made on your part, 
* 4 I was dcfiroLis that the unhappy chapter, which you 
muft know to be a moil difgraceful one from the be- 
€e ginning, fhouU be (hut up, and no further expofitioit 
w of your charac* ••. r take place. With this idea in my 
* 6 mind, your feftifrref* to my letter difappointed me. I 
m ili 11 however entertained a hope that fecond confidera- 
tion would place the fubject before you in its proper 
light, and on that ground fufpended my decifion. Bu* 
when in a fnbfequent letter to your filter, your object 
" appeared to be to efface, as far as your contradiction 
" could avail, every true veftige of the family interview, 
by grofsly mifreprefenting your mother's reception ; by 
i€ denying that you had confeffed any guilt before her ; 
ie Iv: virtually confirming fuch denial, by calling yourfelf 
cc an injured innOcent perfon, and your mother a deluded 
* c one ; and by indirectly claiming as the natural right of 
fftf your children what your mother thought proper to with- 
ce hold from them, for the fatisfaction of what me con- 
€{ fidered to be a debt of juftice to the children of another 
cc daughter, who had been deprived of a portion of their 
i( natural right by your taking their father on unjuft 
€fc ground into a court ; it became necefTary for me to con- 



* Mr. Daubeny here again trips. How can he pretend, " that 
c< Mrs. Meade's letter difappointed his expectations when he 
well knew that fix months before, when fhe heard that fhe was 
charged with thefe pretended confeffions, the rejected and difclaimed 
them with contempt? See, in the account of the interview, Mrs. 
Meade's letter to Mrs. M. Barnfton, Appendix, letter C. 



APPENDIX. 269 

**' fider how far the carrying my original plan into effect 
ff was, under fuch circumftances, expedient or proper; 
" and the refnit of my confultation with my friends at 
ii Bath has been an united and molt decided opinion, that 
" confidering the principle by which the will was evidently 
" dictated, the refpedt due both to the memory of your 
(( mother, and to my own character, demanded, as things 
C( now flood, that the will mould be carried into regular 

' fc> 

<c execution ; becaufe, to perfift in carrying my original 
6( plan into effecl, after my offer had not only been un- 
64 accepted, but had produced fuch a bold unqualified de- 
" claration on your part, would have the appearance of 
iC at leaft tacitly admitting the truth of fuch declaration^ 
<c and thereby pronouncing an indirect judgment a gain ft 
" your excellent mother for having made a will, which, 
tc on the ground of fuch admiffion, ought not to have been 
46 made. 

" This letter I am aware can give you no fatisfaclion. 
€i I truly lament that you have placed me in fuch a fitu- 
ation, that to my mind has rendered the writing of it 
4C neceflary. But I more deeply lament the circumftanee 
tc of your ftill perfifting to walk on that falfe ground on 
%c which, alas! you have been fo long walking; becaufe 
tc you are thereby treafuring up for yourfelf a more fevere 
" repentance again ft the day when repentance mail come; 
(e for truth muft ultimately triumph. 

" With the moft earned wi flies for your welfare, and 
cc a defire, as far as character will permit, to contribute to 
it, I conclude in the words of your good mother, addreffed 
to you at the dofe of the late interview, 6 I forgive 
you, with all my heart; and may Gop forgive you, 



a 



1 



270 APPENDIX. 

«* 6 and open your eyes to fee your error, that you may 
" 6 return into the way of peace/* 

" Such is the prayer of your faithful 
ee Friend and Brother, 
f May 28, 1804. Charles Daubeny." 

Mr*. Meade's Aniwer. 

" Sir, June, 1804. 

ce IT was but a few days ago that I faw your letter to 
6C me of the 28th of May; Mr. Meade not having thought 
c( proper, in the ill ftate of my health, to give me the 
ie trouble of reading it fooner. 

" I do not know whether you expected an anfwer; nor 
" mould I be inclined to give any, but that you may 
ee perhaps interpret my filence as afTent to your afTertions. 
" The confeffions you impute to me I utterly difclaim. 
" Indeed, the abfurdity of thofe afTertions, and proofs 
" fupplied by yourfelf, are of themfelves enough to coti- 
(C tradict you. But I truft I want no proof. I trull that 
u ray character, my word, and my oath, are equal to all 
" the evidence you can produce. If you had ten times 
66 the number of witnefTes of whom you boafl:, I mould 
<e contemn them all. e I confess voluntarily to suck 
" ' persons, at the moment they were wounding me in 
(C c the cruellest manner that my husband obtained a 
" s verdict by my own notorious perjury I ! !' Oh ! Mr. 

* Mrs. Meade folemnly delares, and (he trufts it is unneceffary 
for her to add that fhe can and is ready to declare in the moffc 
facred manner, that her poor mother made, no fuch fpeech, nor ut- 
tered a fyllable like it; nor indeed did fhe appear capable of it* 



APPENDIX. 571 

Daubenv, for your character and p'rofeffion's fake, draw 
Cf a veil over the whole of that interview. What bufinefs 
t( had you there? I explained to my lifter, and I wrote - 
" to my mother, (to whom you probably never mewed 
5* what [ wrote) that I only fought to throw mvfelfat her 
<£ feet, and to obtain her bletnng. What right had yon 
(i to obtrude yourfelf between her and me? I went alone, 
fe expecting to find my mother alone. I was unprotected 
C£ and unfufpecting. Was it decent or charitable to have 
" a party to furprize and oppofe me at the only meeting 
ee with, her I was fufTered to have in twelve years? And 
i£ when my child went with me to obtain, once in her 
" life at leaft, her grandmother's blefiing, why was fhe 
* c not permitted to fee her; but kept below flairs by 
•' tf your orders ; while perfons, abfolute ftrangers to^me, 
& were placed in my mother's room? perfons, whofe 
minds you had previoufly inflamed againft me, and had 
** worked up their prejudices to a degree of enthufiafm. 
ce If you chofe to have witnelfes, had our family no dis- 
" paflionate friends or connexions? Were no relations or 
(< peace-makers to be found? Certainly, if I had known 
" your fcheme, I mould not have trufted my character 
ce into fo tremendous a iituation! As to the part of my 
€e mother's will which gives my mare of her fortune chiefly 
<( to you, and on which you dwell fo much, there is no 
(c reafon why you mould addrefs me about it. It refts 
with yourfelf to do as you pleafe; I have nothing to fay 
or do. If you meant the few hundreds you fpeak of as 
the price of my admitting your juftice and my own 
infamy, you little know me, if you can believe that 
millions would bribe me to fay w^hat I did not think 
true 5 and if not, \t is not likely that a trifling portion 



21* 



>PPENDIX. 



& of my own fortune reftored to my children could fe- 
c< duce me to it. The fpeech you afcribe to my beloved 
ec mother, is like the confeffion you impute to me; you 
" know that me uttered not a word of it. But if {he had 

made fuch a one, it would only prove that flie fpoke 
(e what (lie was told; as her letters (as well as thofe of 

other people) were evidently written from copies. 
66 Your endeavours to torture my expreffions into difre- 
(i fpeet for her are equally unjuft. A word of difrefpect 
cc towards her, never efcaped my lips or pen. I loved 
<c and honoured her when living, and I venerate her me- 
€t mory ; and I ever prayed God that the goodnefs of 
(( her heart, and the fituation in which the was placed, 
6C might be fully confidered in her great account. For 
" feparated as (he was from me and mine, no wonder 
cc there was mifunderftanding. But it is time to clofe 
(C this unavailing correipondence : for if twelve years' 
6e efforts for peace have been always fo thwarted and per- 
cc verted by you, as only to irritate the wound which 
fC mould have been healed, what good end can now be 
<e expected ? When I heard you affert before my mother^ 
6e e that you had received a letter fcom Dr. Blayney fa- 
tc c vouringyourcaufe;' and your friends the Mifs Mafons* 
cc related the fame afterwards to Mr. Champneys, and 
ec when preffed into enquiry, gave it up as a mistake; 
<( what good is obtained for the caufe of truth and inno- 
' e cence by fuch acknowledgment ? My mother was gone 
cc to a better world ; and the injury, as far as it concerned 
(( her, was irreparable. When you aifert in your letter 
<c Q that you confidered that my CGiifessions were to lead 
" ( to farther conciliation-,' have you forgot that the 
u very day after tfiefe pretended coiifefnons you yourself 



APPENDIX. 



273 



ff fent to me by exprefs a letter from my fifter, e ordering 
e< £ me never to go again to my mother's houfe, nor to 
<e c fuflfer my children to go there; for the fervants had 
€( e directions to refufe them admittance ?' And when is 
(C it that you firft exprefs ( your expectations of concilia- 
" c tion Following my confeffions it is after an interval 
(i of fix months, and in a letter which confirms fepara- 
(i tion for ever. 

Ci Let us at lead live in peace, if we cannot live in 
" friendmip; it is the only civility that is afked of you 
u by your much-injured fifter 3 

" Catherine Meade." 



ce P. S. I requeft and infill upon it that you will not 
" trouble me with letters, which are only channels to 
<c convey infill ts, and to repeat charges which you know 
6C to be unfounded. If you have bufinefs to write on 3 
« it (hall be attended to; but nothing elfe. C, M. M 



274 



APPENDIX. 



( F. ) 



-Copy of the Bis Jwp of Lincoln's Paper, 
sent to Mr, Meade. 



QOON after I went to Bath, towards the end of laft 
^ February, I called upon a lady with whom I had 
long been acquainted; and the difpute between Mr. Dau- 
beny and Mr. Meade happening to be mentioned, {he 
afked me whether I mould like to read the pamphlets which 
had been printed upon the fubje&j as me thought me could 
procure them for me. I faid that I had no objection^ 
and in a day or two {he fent me the printed trial, and 
Mr. Daubeny's pamphlet. Knowing that feveral of my 
friends had adopted different opinions relative to the 
conduct of Mr. Daubeny and Mr. Meade in this affair; 
and that one in particular, whom I greatly refpected, had 
changed his fentiments on the fubject, T felt a defire to 
inveftigate the matter fully ; and I was confident I mould 
do it with impartiality, as my mind was entirely free from 
any bias. I did not know either of the parties perfonally ; 
but I had been informed, that both Mr. Daubeny and 
Mr. Meade were willing to mew their original documents 
to any perfon who was difpofed to examine them : and I 
confidered the fubject to be important, as it involved the 
•character of a clergyman who had diftinguifhed himfelf 



APPENDIX. 



275 



as a theological writer. It was mentioned to Mr. Dau- 
beny that I declared myfelf ready to examine into the 
fubject, if it were his wiln that I mould do fo: and he 
called upon me to exprefs his readinefs to fhew me his 
papers for that purpofe. Mr. Daubeny afked me whether 
I had read the printed pamphlets; and upon my anfwering 
that I had read the trial and his pamphlet, he faid it was 
proper that I mould read Mr. Meade's pamphlet before I 
looked at his (Mr. Daubeny's) papers. After reading 
Mr. Meade's pamphlet, which Mr. Daubeny fent me, I 
called upon Mr. Daubeny; and in three mornings I read 
over the letters and original documents which he had to 
produce. Some of the principal ones 1 carried home 
with me, read them a fecond time, and made extracts 
from them, with fuch obfervations as occurred to me. One 
document, containing an account of the interview be- 
tween Mrs. Meade and her mother Mrs. Barnfton, in 
September 1803, had no other fignature but that of 
Mr. Daubeny, which I did not think fufficient in fuch a 
cafe. I afked Mr. Daubeny whether the Mifs Mafons', 
who were faid to be prefent at the interview, would bear 
teftimony to the correclnefs of Mr. Daubeny's account of 
it. He anfwered that the younger Mifs Mafon was in 
London, but that the elder was in Bath ; and that if I 
chofe to call upon her, I might hear what me had to fay 
vipon the fubjecl:. I waited upon Mifs Mafon, and me 
fhewed me a copy of Mr. Daubeny's account of the in- 
terview, which he had given her foon after it took place. 
I afked her whether fhe and her lifter confidered that ac- 
count as correct ; {he anfwered, cc perfectly correcV' 
She then mewed me an account of the fame interview, 
drawn up and figned by her fitter immediately after the; 



276 



APPENDIX. 



interview, and before ihe faw Mr. Daubeny's account of 
it; which agreed with Mr. Daubeny's account as nearly as 
narratives of the fame converfation by different perfons 
can be expected to agree, differing in no one material 
pointy each containing fome things omitted by the other, 
but remembered by all the perfons prefent when men- 
tioned to them. Thus far I had confined myfelf to ori- 
ginal documents, and had taken nothing upon the autho- 
rity of Mr. Daubeny only ; but the night before I left 
Bath, Mr. Daubeny fent me two papers of considerable 
length drawn up by himfelf, the one containing a detailed 
account of what had paffed between Mr. Meade and 
himfelf, and his family, from the time of the death of the 
firft- Mrs. Meade till after the trial, addreffed to Dr. Blay- 
ney, but never fent to him; and the other a reply to Mr. 
Meade's pamphlet, which was never publifhed ; with per- 
miffion to carry them to Lymington. The evening 
before I left Bath 3 I wrote a letter to Dr. Randolph, of 
which the following is a copy : 

« Rev. Sir, 

<e I came to Bath about three weeks flnce a perfeCl 
iS ftranger to Mr. Daubeny, but I was induced to avail 
<e myfelf of an opportunity which prefented itfelf of exa- 
tc mining the letters and other documents in his poffeflion, 
4e relative to the difpute between him and Mr. Meade. 
* 6 1 think it due to Mr. Meade that he mould be informed 
sc that I am equally ready to examine any original papers 
sc which he may have upon this fubjecl. And as I un- 
* c derftand that you' are a friend of Mr. Meade's, I take 
(f the liberty of requeuing you to communicate this infor- 
ss niation to him. I mould have been very glad to have 



APPENDIX. 



277 



ce hadfome convcrfation with you upon this bulinefs, but 
<c I difl not finifti Mr. Daubeny's papers till yefterday, 
(C and to-morrow I am under the neceffity of leaving 
(£ Bath. I mall pafs the next fortnight at Lymington, 
" and from thence I mall go to London, where I expect 
" to remain till the end of April. 

" I am, Sec. 

« G. Lincoln." 

" Crefcent, Bath, 
" Sunday Evening, March 17, 1805." ' 

In confequence of this letter, Mr. Meade fent me his 
papers to Lymington, and they arrived before I had read 
Mr. Daubeny's two papers mentioned above. I read all 
Mr. Meade's papers firft, and then I read Mr. Daubeny's 
two papers, which concluded the whole bufinefs. 

1 flatter myfelf that no inveftigation could have been 
carried on with greater impartiality, or in a manner lefs 
likely to produce prejudice or hafly opinion on either fide. 
I proceed to ftate the refult. 

A great deal of extraneous matter has been introduced 
into this bufinefs; but inflating my opinion, I fhall con- 
fine myfelf principally to the evidence given by Mifs Ca- 
therine Barnfton, now Mrs. Meade, upon the trial which 
took place June 6th, 1792. Upon that occafion Mifs C. 
Barnfton fwore in court, that her mother had given her full 
and free confent to her marrying Mr. Meade; but that in 
confequence of what Mr. Daubeny flated to her, (Mifs C. 
Barnfton) in a converfation on the 28th of June, 1791, 
refpecting the will of the former Mrs. Meade, Mr. Dau- 
beny's fifter, flie had hitherto been prevented from marry- 



273 



APPENDIX. 



ing Mr. Meade; that fuppofmg Mr. Meade's character 
had not been attacked refpecling the will, fhe mould un- 
doubtedly have married him ; that the converfation fhe 
had with her brother-in-law Mr. Daubeny tended to 
confirm her fufpicions; and that after what Mr. Daubeny 
faid refpecling the will, the matter had never been cleared 
up fatisfaclorily in her own mind. This account of Mifs 
C. Barnfton's evidence is taken from the printed trial, 
and it agrees in fubftance with the minutes made by Mr. 
Daubeny's counfel upon their briefs, at the time Mifs 
Barnfton gave her evidence in court. In confequence of 
this evidence, the jury gave a verdicl againft Mr. Dau- 
beny, with 5001. damages; and found that the marriage 
was loft in confequence of the words fpoken by him on 
the 2Sth of June, 1791, and that Mifs C. Barnfton had 
not made up her mind till they were fpoken. 

I mail endeavour to prove, fir ft, that Mrs. Barnfton 
never did give her full and free confent to her daughter's 
marrying Mr. Meade; and, fecondly, that even allowing 
Mifs C. Barnfton's account of the converfation, which fhe 
fays palled between herfelf and Mr. Daubeny on the 28th of 
June, 1791, to be accurate, that converfation did not pre- 
vent the marriage. In proof of ihefe proportions, I mall 
quote extracts from original letters and other authentic 
documents which I myfelf faw. 

Mrs. Barnfton, in a paper ftgned by herfelf, and dated 
June 10th, 1792, a few days after the trial, made the fol- 
lowing declaration: — ec Whereas my daughter Catherine 
" has thought proper to fwear in a public court that fhe 
(C refufed to marry Mr. Meade in confequence of prejudice 
€C taken againft him from a converfation with her brother, 
the Rev, Charles Daubeny, my fon-in-law, in the 



1 



APPENDIX. 



270 



W month of June laft, 1791 ; and that previous to the faid 
£( converfation, fhe had obtained rny full and free confent 
(< to the connexion; and took fome pains to convince the 
" court that I was ready and defirous of receiving Mr. 
cc Meade into my family, and that the only objection to 
(e the match taking place arofe from the improper inter- 
f€ ferenceof my fon-in-law; in confequence of which the 
" court determined, that the fum of 5001. together with 
* f cofts, mould be paid to the fame Thomas Meade, by 
(i way of compenfation for the delay of his intended mar- 
" riage: — I Mary Barn fton, mother of the above Catherine, 
(( do therefore hereby raoft folemnly declare, that had I 
€i appeared in court, I mull, in juftice to my fon-in-law, 
(£ as well as tomyfelf, have given the following tefiimony 
Ci in direcl: contradiction to that of my daughter above- 
(i mentioned. In the firft place, 1 folemnly declare that 
" I never did fee Mr. Meade in that light as to wifh to 
(( receive him in the character of a fon-in-law; and that I 
" had at different times expreffed my difapprobation of 
" fuch a thing before my daughter's return to England, 
" when the fubjecl: happened occafionally to be intro- 
" duced in converfation ; having always had a great ob- 
tc jection to an Irifh connexion, and no partiality to Mr. 
P Meade. On my daughter's return to England, when 
<e the matter was firft mentioned to me in her prefence, 
C{ I immediately expreffed my flrcngeft difapprobation of 
" it, before any thing had been mentioned relative to the 
" manner in which the bufinefs had been carried on, tell- 
" ing my daughter, that if I had thought it poffible for 
" her to like an Irifhman, and fuch a man as Mr. Meade, 
" I mould certainly have written her a letter to have 
" guarded her againft him. That the day after I told 



280 



APPENDIX. 



" Mrs. Gunning that I could not by any means confertt 
f.f to Mr. Meade's coming to the houf'e; and that in a 
"■few days after I told Mr. Meade himfelf, that I nei- 
" ther did, or everfhould, approve of the bufinefs. That 
" my daughter did at different times prefs me on the 
ec fubjecl:; but that I never did at any time, either directly 
" or indirectly, give my full and free confent to the bufi- 
iC nefs; fo far from it, that I told her over and over again 
ee that file mint do as me pleafed, but that I never could 
<e give my confent; that on her at length afking me whe- 
<c ther, if me married Mr. Meade, I would receive him 
<c as a fon-in-law, my anfwer was, Certainly, my dear ; 
u if you marry him, I mult receive him : but this T con- 
66 fidered as a matter of necefftty, not of choice, my 
" daughter in this cafe giving me no option; and this my 
" daughter could not be ignorant of, having had the matter 
(e fully explained to her. That my daughter in confequence 
€e gave up Mr. Meade in July 1790, and the matter was 
* 6 declared to be at an end ; that fhe afterwards gave him 
" up a fecond time, in a more formal and decided man- 
€e ner, in the month of January 1791.? on her return from 
" Haddon, telling me that fhe had given him up for my 
< e happinefs. And that after fuch decided conduct, and fo 
€c many repeated declarations on the part of my daughter, 
€C refpecting having entirely given up Mr. Meade, I 
€( could not conceive it poffible that ilie meant to carry 
" on the affair, till Mr. Henry Sawbridge came commif- 
" floned from my daughter, in the month of January laft, 
cc to inform me that me was determined at all events to 
(c marry Mr. Meade. T do moreover folemnly declare, 
<6 thai my objections to Mr. Meade had nothing to do 
ee with hit> late wife's will, upon which I never heard my 



APPENDIX. 



281 

• ■%,-!• i IS! 



u Ton -in- law give any deciflve judgment, and upon which 
i( I never formed any opinion, as my daughter has been 
tC frequently told ; but that they were derived from Mr, 
u Meade's conducl abroad, and to rnyfelf fince his return, 
¥ Mr. Meade having folemnly promifed me, on the word 
of a gentleman and a ChrifHan, with his hand on his 
* c breait. that he never would carry the affair on, if it did 
ic not meet with my full approbation; and after being told 
ff by me that it neither did, nor ever would, meet with it, 
€< at Ihe fame time when I had left the room, having per- 
<s fuaded my daughter to continue a correfpondence with 
5? him. I do moreover declare, in juflice to the character 
£f of my fon-in-law, which I confider as having been 
6C bafely afperfed on this occanon, that fo far from making 
<e ufe of any influence to prejudice my judgment refne£fc- 
<c ing Mr. Meade, he defired me in the beginning of this 
f.\ affair to pay no attention to the difpute between him 
<c and Mr. Meade, but as a mother to judge what was 
<c beff for my daughter's happinefs. Such mult have been 
<c the evidence which I mould have given -upon oath, had 
s( I appeared in court ; being fully convinced in my own 
<c mind, that the verdict which has been obtained againlt 
<f my fon-in-law is founded upon the grofieft mifrepre- 
iC fentation of facts; and that my fon-in-law has been 
f* moft grofsly deceived, and mofl bafely treated, both by 
iC Mr. Meade and my daughter in this bufinefs. 

"i (Signed) « Mary Barns ton, fen." 

« June 10th, 1792/' 



282 



APPENDIX. 



The following is the copy of a letter written by Mrs. 
Barnfton, to her brother Henry Sawbridge, efq$ June 
Ilth, 1792. 

" Dear Brother, 

" MY family is now brought to fuch a fituation that I 
* c cannot pafs it by unnoticed. My daughter's conduct 
€: fhocks me, and, I muft think, furpriles you. I hear 
cc me has fvvorn in court, Ihe had my full and free con- 
cc fent ;; that had it not been for her brother, I fhould have 
iC received Mr. Meade molt gladly. I told my daughter, 
6i in my laft letter to her about three weeks ago, if God 
6C would enable me, I would have gone into court to have 
<c appeared againft her, and had I been there, I mould 
u have declared this to have been the greateft falfehood. 
" She never did at any time receive my confent— my 
f c objections have increafed, the more I became acquaint- 
** ed with his conducl. I now think my daughter and 
<c Mr. Meade have acted a deceitful and bafe part; for 
<e when a lifter goes into a court to fwear downright falfe- 
" hoods for the fake of injuring a brother, who 1 am con- 
<( vinced loved his lifter but too well, to me nothing can 
" be more {hocking. Sorry am I to think the fupport 
" which Kitty has received from fome branches of your 

family, has helped to lead her on to the prefent dreadful 
<c extremity: of this I am the more convinced, when I 
f c hear your fon Henry fhook hands with her in the court 
" when Ihe had finifhed her evidence, when he muft have 
te known fhe had fworn falfely, as he cannot but remem- 
" ber his errand to me from my daughter in January laft. 
" That my daughter fhould, in fpite of all entreaties, facri- 
" fice the comfort of her family, and her own character, 
u in the manner fhe has done, is fo fhocking to me, that 



APPENDIX. 



283 



i% my only comfort now depends on driving the fubject 
*f from my mind. Thank God, I have fome children 
** left, whofe duty and affection will make me fome amends 
** for the daughter I have loft. May you, dear brother, 
Vc never feel what I have felt, is the fincere prayer of your 
** affectionate and diflrelfed filler, 

u M. Barnston." 

Mrs. Barnfton holds the fame lang;iia<re in a letter to 
Mr. Goddard, of which the following is a copy, dated the 
fame day, June 11th, 1792. 



« Sir, 

i( I DID not expect that a friend of Mr. Barnfton^ 
<c and as I thought of myfelf, would have fupported a 
i6 daughter of mine in oppolltion to her mother, and en- 
cr couraged her to diftrefs her family by expofing herlelf 
ee in a public court. 7'his is a fubject, which diftreffed as 
fC I am, I can fay but little; but injuftice to myfelf, and 
Ci particularly to my fon-in-law, who I mail ever think 
€C has been mo ft bafely treated, I muft fay fomethmg. 
€e My daughter took upon herfelf to fwear fhe had recei- 
€C ved my full and free confent, and took pains to convince 
" the court that I had no objections to her connection 
* with Mr. Meade : had I been in court, I mould fo- 
" lemnly have declared this to have been the greateft falfe- 
(i hood. She never did at any time receive my confent $ 
** and my objections have more increafed, the more I 
" became acquainted with Mr. Meade's conduct. I now 
u think both Mr. Meade and my daughter have acted a 
* c deceitful, difhonourable, and bafe part, I told my 



APPENDIX. 



* 6 daughter, in my laft letter three weeks ago, if God 
* c would enable me, I would have gone into court to 
" have appeared againft my daughter ; for when a lifter 
tfc goes into a court to fwear downright falfehoods for the 
66 fake of injuring the character and fortune of a brother, 
<c the cafe mud be bad indeed ; to me nothing can be 
more mocking. You, Sir, having heard only my 
" daughter's ftory, and not choofing to hear any other, 
" limit be left to your own judgment. My mind is 
" fixed. T approve of my fon-in-law's conduct, as much 
" as I di (approve of my daughter's. My daughter's and 
(c Mr. Meade's mifreprefentation will never hurt him : 
" As to myfelf, thank God, I have other children, whofe 
" duty and affection I can depend upon. Should Mrs. 
" Goddard ever become a widow, I have only to hope 
" me will never be treated as I have been. 

" I am, Sir, your obedient, humble fervant, 

fC Mary Barnston. 



" I beg you will fend me no anfwer, as I wim to rid 

(C the fubject from my mind." 

The above two letters to Mr. Sawbridge and Mr. God- 
dard were written, immediately after the trial, by Mrs. 
Barnfton from Bath, before Mr. Daubeny returned from 
London. 

Mrs. Barnfton, in a letter, dated December 29, 1797, 
to Mr. Coham, a friend of Mr. Meade's, who endeavoured 
to effect a reconciliation, writes thus, as quoted by Mr. 
Meade, page 41, No. I, of his papers 



'appendix* 



285 



<x Every thing {liort of the facrince of character will be 
* f readily given up on our parts. My daughter rmift on 
€( her's openly and plainly undo what fhehas clone. She 
" has fworn in court that {he had my full and free con- 
" fent to her marriage : this I moft pofltively deny." 

That Mifs Barnfton declined marrying Mr. Meade 
becaufe of her mother's objections, and confequently that 
me did not receive her mother's full and free confent, 
appears from the following letters of Mifs Barnfton herfeif. 

In a letter to her fifter Daubeny, dated Auguft 1791 9 
(he writes thus: — <e If you think I meant to fay I gave 
<e him up from conviction of his unworthinels, you was 
ee indeed deceived, T could not fay what I did not think, 
x( I told my mother not long ago,' that I gave up the 
ec matter for her happinefs ; and me faid me knew I did ; 
" and I never will let it be faid that I gave him up on 
e( account of his character," 

Sept, 4th, 1791. Mifs Barnfton writes thus to her 
mother : (S I do not mean to recede from the promife I 
ce made you, becaufe I truft, if I know my own heart, 
(e that it was founded on the principles of duty and affection 
ce in preferring your happinefs to my own. It remains 
<c therefore in its full force upon me — I will never urge 
66 my happinefs' in contradiction to your's." 

In a letter written ahout the fame time to Mr. Daubeny, 
Mifs Barnfton fays, ec I have done nothing, nor ever in- 
(C tended^ but to facrifice my happinefs to her's," (her 
mother's;) cc and when I deceive her, may the hypocrite's 
< c portion be my lot." 

The following extracts from letters of Mr. Meade, and 
from his pamphlet and papers, prove that he confidered 
bis marriage with Mifs Barnfton as prevented by Mrs, 



£5d APPENDIX. 

Barnfton's refufal of her confent; and confequently, Mrs. 
Barnfton did not give her full and free confentl , ^ 

Mr. Meade, in a letter to Mr. John Daubeny, writes thus 
in April 1791 : " Mifs Barnfton fays, that though ihe will" 
<c at all times give up her own happinefs to her mother's, 
cc and has lately been brought to the hard trial, yek.no- 
ei thing fhall prevent her doing me juftice." 

In another letter, written fome months after to the fame 
perfon, Mr. Meade fays, in fpeaking of Mifs Barnfton, 
ce She is too ftrongly impreffed with parental and filial 
ce duty and affection to facrifice them ; and I hope I 
* c have too much principle to deftre that fhe fhould make 
<c her mother unhappy on my account.'* 

Mr. Meade, in page 63 of his pamphlet, fays, 6( The 
ec matter was left open for Mrs. Barnfton's decifion, and 
" was even dropped upon her refufing her confent. What 
€C more could have been required ?" 

In Mr, Meade's papers, No. I, and I think page 27/ 
is the following paragraph : u On Mr. Meade's return 
ie from the Continent, about a year before this letter is 
cc dated, (that is about the middle of the year 1790) the 
(( lady of Dr. Gunning, by Mifs Barnfton's permiffion, 
(i and Mr. Meade's defire, waited on Mrs. Barnfton to 
t: make propofals of marriage. But Mr. Daubeny had 
" been before hand with her; Mrs. Barnfton faid her 
(e daughter was her own miftrefs, {he was old enough to 
ec judge and act for herfelf, but that fhe could not give 
€e her approbation to ' this propofal, as fhe found there 
*< was a difpute between Mr. Meade and Mr. Daubeny, 
* c and it was not in her power to approve of a connexion 
t( that muft bring divifions into her family." In this 
paflage Mr. Meade confefTes that Mrs. Barnfton refufed 



APPENDIX. 



287 



her confent, but he infinuates that it was in confequence 
of her being prejudiced againft him by Mr. Daubeny : 
upon this point Mr. Daubeny makes the following de- 
claration : — " Soon after our return from the Continent 
(( in 1190, and fome days before Mr. Meade came to 
cc Bath, I particularly defired Mifs C. Barnfton to tell her 
(C own ftory to her mother, as being that degree of con- 
M fidence which her mother had a right to expect from 
t( her; and I exprefily told her that I was unwilling her 
ce mother mould hear any thing upon the fubjecl from 
" any other quarter. With this view I took the elder 
" lifter with us into the country, and Mifs C. Barnfton 
" was left alone with her mother feveral days. Mifs C. 
" Barnfton however did not mention the fubjecl to her 
" mother. Soon after our return, Mr. Meade arrived at 
<c Bath; he came to breakfaft one morning at Mrs. Barn- 
(C fton's, and upon taking his leave, Mrs. Barnfton afked 
<c him to come and dine. After he was gone, and when 
€C all the family were at the table, I obferved to Mrs. 
" Barnfton thatfomething had paffed between Mr. Meade 
" and Mifs C. Barnfton abroad, but that the matter was 
Ctf at an end. No particulars were mentioned to prejudice 
" Mrs. Barnfton, but {he immediately fpoke to her daugh- 
<e ter on the fubjecl:, in the manner exprefied in her de- 
(C claration. This was the firft time that any thing was 
cc faid by me, or to my knowledge and belief, by any per- 
u fon, to Mrs. Barnfton on the fubjecl of Mr. Meade; and 
<( Mrs. Barnfton appeared to receive the idea relative to 
4C any thing having palled between her daughter and Mr. 
*f Meade as perfectly new to her mind. Mrs. Gunning 
u came the next morning, but I had faid not a word 
" more to the mother on the fubject." 



£88 APPENDIX. 

- Mrs, M. Barnfton attefts the truth of this declaration, 
as far as concerns her going into the country with Mr. 
and Mrs. Daubeny, leaving her fitter alone with her mo- 
ther, and the conversation which palled after their return. 

In page 16 of the fame paper, Mr. Meade, ihfpeaking 
of Mils Barnflon's delire to fee him at her mother's houfe 
before he went to Ireland, in Auguft 1790, after he had 
been rejected, fays, C( Mr. Daubeny ufed every poffibfe 
* c means to prevent Mr. Meade's being received, butMifs 
cs Barnfton, for the firft time, oppofed him with fuccefs V 
cc lhe told her mother that having given up her intentions 
cc of marrying, me had done full as much as me could 
ce aik of her ; and if Mr. Meade was refufed admittance 
cs into her houfe after that, fhe was refolved that {he would 
6i go to him, and prepared to do fo.f An interview did 
take place between Mr. Meade and Mifs C. Barnfton at 
Mrs. 'Barnflon's houfe, as mentioned in Mrs. Barnflon's 
declaration. Mr. Daubeny denies that he made any ob- 
jections to Mr. Meade being received ; and the reft of the 
family recollect that nothing of this kind was urged by 
Mr. Daubeny. The only objection made was by Mrs, 
Barnfton herfelf, who wifhed to prevent the interview, left 
it mould agitate her daughter too much. Mifs Barnfton 
was really prepared to go to Mr. Meade at the inn; and 
to prevent that impropriety, Mrs. Barnfton confented that 
Mr. Meade fhould come to her houfe. 

It only remains upon this head, that I add a paflage 
from a letter of Mrs, Meade to her mother, dated in 1 796, 
taken from page 3, No. II. of Mr. Meade's papers : cc If 
" I acknowledged that you once confented to my marrying 
* ( Mr. Meade, and defired me to perfuade Mr. Daubeny] 
es do I really for this deferve to be publicly charged with 



APPENDIX. 



289 



c * the dreadful crime of perjury ? That you forget it, I 
ec am perfuaded. Why will you not have equal indul- 
f£ gence for me?" It is highly improbable that fuch 
confent, if ever given, Ihould have been forgotten by Mrs. 
Barnfton; it would naturally have been communicated 
to the relations and friends of the parties ; but no evi- 
dence was produced on the trial, nor is any brought 
forward in Mr. Meade's pamphlet or papers, to prove that 
fuch confent was ever given, or even fuppofed or under- 
wood to be given. Had fuch evidence exifted, Mr. Meade 
would not have failed to produce it, as it would have been 
very material to his caufe. Betides, if Mrs. Barn fton did 
give her full and free confent, why did not the marriage 
take place ? The former Mrs. Meade had been dead at 
leaft two years, when the confent is faid to have been 
given ; Mil's Barnfton was then more than thirty years 
old ; her father was dead, and me was in polTeffion of an 
independent and conliderable fortune ; and it is not even 
pretended that in the year 1790, there was any other 
impediment. 

Upon this ground, and from the above accumulated 
teftimony ftill remaining in the hand-writing of Mrs. 
Barnfton, Mrs. Meade, and Mr. Meade, I cannot but 
conclude that Mrs. Barnfton never did give her full and 
free confent that her daughter mould marry Mr. Meade. 

I now come to the other part of Mifs Barnfton' s evi- 
dence, in which fhefwore that certain words were fpoken 
to her by Mr. Daubeny, on the 28th of June, 1791^ and 
that thofe words caufed her to determine not to marry 
Mr. Meade. This converfation is faid to have paffed be- 
tween Mr. Daubeny and Mifs Barnfton only, no third 
perfon being prefent ; and confequently it is impoffible 

u 



290 



APPENDIX. 



to bring any direct proof that thefe words were not fpoken; 
but it may be proved that the words, if fpoken, did not 
produce the effect which Mifs Barnftan fwore they did 
produce, namely, the prevention of her marriage with 
Mr. Meade. 

The firft proof of this is contained in the teftimonies 
which have been already brought forward, for it has been 
fliewn, that Mifs Barnfton declined marrying Mr. Meade 
in Auguft, 1790, and again in January 1791, becaufeher 
mother refufed her confent; and confequently this con- 
verfation, which is faid to have paflfed in June 1791, did 
Slot prevent the marriage. 

The following extract from a letter of Mifs Barnfton to 
her lifter Mrs. Daubeny, dated Auguft 1 791 j? proves that 
the fufpicions about the will were fubfequent to Mifs 
Barnfton's refufal of Mr. Meade, and confequently could 
anot produce it : C( I wifhed, you may be fure, to acquaint 
C€ him of the fufpicions fo injurious to his character, 
** and to have them cleared, as they were ruining him in 
€C every body's eyes, without his having an opportunity 
t: of defending himfelf. When I heard that he had been 
€£ told of them, I was mod anxious to acquaint him they 
<tf did not come from my brother, and I determined to do 
* fo, and to make him fend me his account of things. I 
<e got Henry Sawbridge to receive fome letters for me on 
" this fubjecl:; becaufe I thought that as the matter was 
u clofed between my mother and I, flie would not like to 
& : e fee letters coming from Mr. Meade/' 

That the converfation faid to have palfed on the 28th 
of June, 1791, did not injure Mr. Meade in Mifs Barn- 
ilon's opinion, and confequently did not prevent the 
marriage, is evident from the following palfage of a letter 



APPEND UC. 2&1 

from Mifs Barnfton to her fifter Mrs. Daubeny, dated 
October 25th, 1 791 : " I finely what every one elfe it feems 
f* finds alfo, that the fun at noon -day is not clearer than 
" his innocence, his honour, and his integrity; and the 
ff raore it is enquired into, the more it will appear — fp 
(c you. will excufe me in thinking him ftil), what I ecer 
" did think him, every thing I wifh and defire in a 
« hufband." 

How could Mifs Barnfton fwear that the fufpicions 
excited by Mr. Daubeny, concerning Mr. Meade's cha- 
racter, prevented her marrying him, when four months 
after the fuppofed converfation, (he fays, that me ever did 
think Mr. Meade every thing {he wifhed in a hufband ? 
Is it poffible for thefe two declarations to be reconciled ? 
Or how could {he fwear, that after what had been faid by 
Mr. Daubeny refpe&ing the will, the matter had never 
been cleared up fatisfaclorily to her mind, and therefore 
Mr. Meade was given up by her; when me actually fent 
her coufin, Mr. H. Sawbridge, to Bath, in January 1792,, 
to inform her mother, that {he was determined at all 
events to marry Mr. Meade? This was noticed in Mrs, 
Barnfton's declaration fubfequent to the trial ; and it is 
alfo mentioned, with other important circumftances, in 
the following paper figned by Mrs. Barnfton and her eldeft 
daughter Mrs. Mary Barnflon, and attefted by two wit- 
nejfes, and fent to London from Bath, with the hope of 
its being ufeful to Mr. Daubeny upon the trial, but it did 
not arrive in time to be produced : 

<( MRS. Barnfton affirms that Mr. Meade was confidered 
" as abfolutely given up by Mifs Barnfton on her return 
u from Haddon, long before thefe fuppofed converfations. 

u 2 



APPENDIX. 



ie between her and Mr. Daubeny took place ; MifsBamfton 
f ( having pofitively affured her mother and friends to this 
« c effect; as a confirmation of which, fheburnt Mr. Meade's 

letter, in anfwer to the one me had written to him con- 
cc taining her decided refufal ; her mother faying to her upon 
i£ the occafion, after (he had read to her Mr. Meade's letter, 
** f Now, my dear, the bufinefs is quite at an end, I would 
fC c advife you to put that letter behind the fire ;' to which 
u MifsBamfton replied, 6 If you think fo, Madam, with 
iC 6 all my heart fhe immediately put the letter into the 
€C fire. The whole family drew one uniform conclufion 
u from it, namely, that the affair in queftion was com- 
* c pletely at an end. Mrs. Barnfton had no idea to the 

contrary, till Mr. H. Sawbridge came in the month of 
" January laft to inform her from her daughter that fhe 
fe was determined at all events to marry Mr. Meade. 
€C Mrs. Barnfton moreover fays, that her objections to 
" Mr. Meade had nothing to do with the will bufinefs ; 
ce and that Mr. Meade was entirely, as (lie judged from 
6( her daughter's declaration, given up before the will 
£c bufinefs was ever brought upon the carpet; and that 
€C therefore MifsBamfton never was fuppofed to, nor could 
* ff me poflibly, have given up Mr. Meade on account of 
* e his character on the fcore of the will bufinefs, as me 
€C pretends to fay; but that after {he had decidedly given 
C6 hint up on another account, fhe made the ftory of the 
* f will bufinefs an excufe for entering into a frem corref- 
€C pondence with him, and taking him up again; and 
a now lays the whole objection to Mr. Meade on that 
€C fcore, which had nothing to do with the original 
<€ idea upon which Mr. Meade was given up. No- 
a thing therefore that has been faid upon that fubject has 



APPENDIX. 



293 



<i weighed, Mrs. Barnfton fays, in her mind ; her opinion 
ce of Mr. Meade being fully formed from his conduct 
(i abroad, and to her fmce his return to England. She 
6( likewife fays that her opinion has been formed upon 
e( her own deliberate judgment, Mr. Daubeny having, in 
ee a converfation with her in the beginning of this affair, 
" expreflly defired me would judge for herfelf, and to con- 
66 fult the beft for her daughter's happinefs, and not to 
" pay any attention to the difference between him and 
" Mr. Meade. And that me never heard, in the many 
Ci confidential converfations that have paffed in the family 
(i upon this unfortunate fubjeel, any expreffion drop from 
6S Mr. Daubeny, that tended to imprefs her with the idea 
(e of Mr. Meade having been guilty of perjury, forgery, 
" or felony. 

ce Mrs. Mary Barnfton confldered Mr. Meade as 
(e abfolutely given up, long before the converfations 
i( alluded to took place; fhe confirms what Mrs. 
** Barnfton has faid refpe&ing the Rev. H. Sawbridge's 
cc vifit, for the purpofe of declaring Mifs Barnfton's 
"mind to her mother: fhe alfo fays, that in the 
u many confidential converfations that have paffed on 
" this fubjeel:, fhe never heard any expreflion from her 
" brother that tended to imprefs her with the leaft idea of 
" Mr. Meade's having been guilty of perjury, forgery, or 
"'felony. Each of the above evidences declares more- 
" over, that they never heard one fyllable drop from Mr. 
*' Daubeny, nor any hint given by him at any time, 
" which led to a fufpicion of the credibility of the wit- 
" neffes to Mrs. Meade's will; nor did they ever hear him 
" fay or intimate that Mrs. Meade's maid had been tarn- 
" pered with, nor do they believe, from the manner in 



1 



S94 



APPENDIX. 



c which Mr. Daubeny has talked upon the fubject, that 
f any fuch idea was ever entertained by him. 

(Signed) "Mary Barnston, the mother. 
" Mary Barnston, jun. 
( Witnefs, Thomas Sikes, Clerk^ 
"John Pound." 



Upon the fame paper was the following declaration 
from Mrs. Ravenhill, fitter to Mrs. Barnfton: 

" MRS. Ravenhill affirms that the chief purport of the 
<e converfation that took place at her houfe, (in thefum- 

mer of 1791) turned upon Mr. Daubeny's preffingMifs 
" Barnfton to determine with herfelf what fhe meant to 
" do with refpe£tto Mr. Meade, both for her own fake as 
" well as her friends ; but upon this head no fatisfa&ory 
t( anfwer could be obtained from her. Mrs. Ravenhill 
u has not the leaft recollection of any thing being faid 
" upon the fubject of the will bufinefs at the time; and 
" is very certain, that at no time fhe ever heard Mr. 
" Daubeny fay, or even intimate, that Mr. Meade was 
" guilty of perjury, forgery, or felony, though fhe has 
" had frequent converfations with him upon the fubje&j 
i( but that what chiefly paffed between them at different 
€t times related to Mr. Meade's behaviour abroad and to 
" Mrs. Barnfton, and the inconfiftent conduct of Mifs 
" C. Barnfton. 

(Signed) " E. Ravenhill." 

The above declarations of. Mrs. Barnfton, Mrs. Mary 
Barnfton, and Mrs. Ravenhill, were drawn up at Bath, 
while Mr, Daubeny was in town. 



APPENDIX. 



295 



Mrs. Barnfton fome weeks before the trial wrote to 
Mifs Barnfton thus : " I am furprifed you mould bring 

forward the will bufinefs to me again; you know that 
" I never entered into it, or formed an opinion upon it, 
se nor ever objected to him on that account. My opi- 
" nion of Mr. Meade was formed upon his conduct to 
(C me, to your brother, and yourfelf ; this you have been 
" told over and over a^ain, but choofe to take no notice 
c * of it, though you know you had given Mr. Meade up 
(i long before the will was ever talked of." 

It is mentioned in Mr. Meade's pamphlet, that Mrs. 
Barnfton, at the time of the trial, was nearly eighty years 
old: fhe was in truth at that time in her feventy-fecond 
year, and in full pofTeffion of her faculties \ fhe continued 
to poffefs her faculties many years after, and indeed in 
the year 1797, Mr. Coham, as a friend of Mr. and Mrs.. 
Meade, propofed to wait upon Mrs. Barnfton to endea- 
vour to efTecl a reconciliation. Mrs. Meade herfelf made 
ilmilar applications to near the time of Mrs. Barnfton's 
death in 1804. In anfwer to one of thefe applications, 
Mrs. Mary Barnfton wrote thus, in 1 796, to Mrs. Meade; 
fpeaking of her mother, fhe fays, " She knows fhe never 
" gave her full and free confent. The utmoft fhe ever 
" faid upon the fubjecl: was no more than this, that if 
" you chofe to marry Mr. Meade, fhe certainly muft re-- 
" ceive him as her fon-in-law; that you were your own 
" miftrefs, and was to do as you pleafed, but that fhe 
" never approved of the bufinefs. This was underftood 
" by you at the time, as from circumftances can be pro. 
" vedj and upon this ground Mr. Meade was given up. 
" Our mother knows fhe is neither governed by influence 
" or prejudice on this occafion, but by her own judgment 



296 



APPENDIX. 



te formed upon plain undeniable fa&s. She knows, and 
H you know, that fo far from making you an outcast, fhe 
iC was calling upon you repeatedly through me to return 
te to her houfe, and you refufed fo to do, till all the mis- 
ee chief which your mother was endeavouring to prevent 
<e was completed by your going into court againft the 
iC direct purport of the ftrongeft letter fhe could write to 
(C you on the occafion. What then, my mother fays, 
ec can be done ? Can you expect that fhe will acknow- 
Ci ledge herfelf guilty to fupport your {lory ? and that fhe 
ec will allow herfelf to be a moft unjuftand cruel mother, 
(( becaufe her daughter has chofe to reprefent her in that 
" light } You talk of appealing to difpaffionate perfons, 
" and that all to whom you appeal fully acquit you; as 
< f according to your {lory you are the innocent party, it 
ee is to be expected they mould do fo. But your mother 
<c fays, flie has no occafion to appeal but to her own un- 
< e derftanding for the judgment of facts which are within 
u her own knowledge. Tell your flory a thoufand times 
" over in your own way, facts will ftill remain the fame; 
6C and your mother fays, while (lie has her fenfes, me will 

never allow that to be true which {he knows to be 
(c falfe. You fwore that your marriage was loft in con- 
<e fequence of words fuppofed to be fpoken by Mr. Dau- 
« beny : my mother knows this cannot be true, becaufe 
<e fix months after thefe words were faid to have been 
* e fpoken, Mr. H. Sawbridge came hither from you to 
£e fay you was determined to marry Mr, Meade ; and Mr, 

W. Sawbridge applied to Mr. Sikes at the fame time, 
* c to afk him to a£t as a truftee on the occafion. My 

mother fays, {he fees this confirmed by your own, 

hand«writing, in a letter written fome months after the 



APPENDIX. 



£y7 



€t words are faid to have been fpoken, in which you fay, 
tc that you would not have it faid that you had given 
up Mr. Meade on account of his character and that 
'4 he was every thing you wifhed or defired in a hufband. 
<e With thefe and many other facts before her eyes, my 
<c mother is fatisfied that the whole court bufinefs was 
" founded upon falfehood : and {he defires me to fay* 
" that when you reprefent yourfelf to be treated as an 
(i outcaft, that if you are an outcaft, you have made your- 
" felf fo : and when you talk of unintended offences, flic 
<6 cannot fee how fuch a term can be made ufe of by a 
*■ daughter, who at the fame time {he Was thus ex pr effing 
ce herfelf in a letter, c that if {he deceived her mother, {lie 
fx e wiflied the hypocrite's portion might be her lot,' was 
< ( then actually deceiving her, by carrying on an affair 
(e which that mother was given to underftand by her was 
* e given up ; and afterwards perfifted in going into a court 
" againft the exprefs purport of that mother's letter." 



The following is a copy of Mrs. Barnfton's letter, 
alluded to in the preceding ; it is dated May 21 ft, 1795. 

<c KlTT Y, 

e( MY -comfort, if I may judge from your late 
<( letters, feems to be quite out of your thoughts. I {hall 
< c therefore fay nothing more upon the fubject. You muft 
<f act as you pleafe. You have faid under your own hand, 
<c that if you deceived your mother, may the hypocrite's 
"portion be your lot; and the promife you made me 
<f remained in full force upon you: how your prefent 
< c conduct agrees with fuch words, I leave to your own 
€i confcience. May that confcience never rife up ia 



A-P t'ENDIX. 



w judgment againft you ! But as a mother, it is my duty 
ct to tell you plainly, that thebadnefs of your conduct in 
ic revealing the confidence of your brother ftrikes me in 
iC a moll mocking light ; and fuch proceeding can never 
" draw after it a mother's blefling. I mull tell you alfo, 
* c that if Mr. Meade begins with law, your brother wilt 
* c go on with it, and other perfons in the family be brought 
* c forward; in which cafe your mother, if God enables 
" her, muft appear to give evidence againft her daughter; 
46 ilie will not fit quiet, and fee her fon's character facri- 
* £ ficed to Mr. Meade. I f you value your own character, 
€C you will confider thefe things ; if not, I muft reft fatis- 
* 4 fied in having difcharged the duty of 

u Your affectionate, 

£C Though much-diftrefled mother, 

"M. Barnston." 



The following is a copy of Mifs Barnfton's anfwer, and 
was the laft letter me wrote to her mother before the trial : 

" My deareft Madam, 

fC WAS I confcious of deferving the reproaches of the 
cc moft cruel letter I ever yet received from your hands, 
tc my confcience would indeed rife up in judgment againft 
€£ me; but feeling the truth in my heart, that it has been 
€f adhering to the promife I made you that has brought 
* c me into all this difficulty, I cannot but feel your cenfure 
cc with the moft extreme grief, but not with humiliation. 
u I have never yet revoked the promife I made you, ex- 
w cept with the view of preventing the prefent dreadful 



APPENDIX. 



399 



** extremity. But as you think even this unjuftifiable ii* 
fe me, I can do nothing elfe to prevent a man from redrefs- 
(< ing himfelf, when he thinks he has been highly injured. 
(e As to revealing the confidence of my brother, it may 
ce ftrike you, my dear Madam, in a (hocking light. It 
" is not the lealt of my injuries that every action of mine \ 
" is fo mifreprefented to you, that I plainly perceive I 
(( have now, what I once thought I had not in the world, 
** an enemy; who has robbed me of one of God's choiceft 
tc bleffings, the opinion and confidence of a much-loved 
" and juftly-valued parent, robbed me by cruel infinu- 
c< ations and continual mifreprefentation. If I had afked 
(c Mr. Daubeny, when he told me what his brothers faid 
{e of Mr, Meade, whether I mould tell it again, he would 
66 have faid, Yes, with all his heart; for neither he, any 
<e more than myfelf, knew that any ill confequence could 
e( arife from it. Befides, he did not tell it to me as any 
(C fecret ; for he faid, his brothers were writing to Mr. 
" Meade himfelf, and that they had laid it all before Dr. 
(C Blayney and Mr. Coham, for they were determined to 
(( have it cleared up. When you wifh me to confider 
" my own character, do remember, my deareft Madam, 
(( that nothing can injure it fo much as the reproach of 
(( fuch a mother as yourfelf. Happy am I to feel that I 
<( can vindicate myfelf from every reproach of your's to 
(i an impartial perfon; but raoft unhappy am I to expe- 
" rience that, from cruel perverlion and obftruclion, I 
" am prevented from vindicating myfelf to you. I would 
# do every thing that is poflible to prevent this terrible 
C( trial. But, alas ! your letter plainly difcovers to me 
" that you have put every thing out of my power. I can 
" only fay, therefore, that if Mr. Meade will go to law, 



300 



APPENDIX. 



* c and Mr. Daubeny will go on with it, your poor daugfr- 
* ( ter mull abide by the confequences; what they may 
96 be, fhe cannot forefee: but let her fufferings here be 
** what they may, {he trufts that innocent intentions, and 
* ( adherence to truth, will find her at laft a peaceful man- 
sf fion, and unite her again to her dear mother, who now 

feems to think her unworthy her bleflmg, and there- 
i6 fore muft conclude her caft off by her heavenly Parent. 

That God Almighty will turn your heart towards 
* £ me, (hail be the conftant prayer of your moft affect- 

ionate daughter, C. Barnston," 

The account given in the above letter of the conver- 
sion in June 1791;, mined Mr. Daubeny, who, con- 
fcious that what did really pafs would in no degree cri- 
minate him, did not expect that Mils Barnfton would 
fvvear what fhe actually did fwear in court. 

The following extract from Mrs. Barnfton's letter to 
Mr. Coham, in 1737, part of which letter has been- al- 
ready quoted, {hews what fhe thought of her daughter's 
evidence five years after the trial: u My daughter fwore 
c * in court that the circumflance refpecting the ftate of 
" the cafe having been lent to Dr. Blayney and Mr. 
* 6 Coham was communicated to her by her brother; and 
tc that he charged Mr. Meade with having forged the 
"will. Both thefe matters are moft folemnly denied; 
<c and no one in the family could imagine what the cir- 
gc cumftances mentioned in the charge refpecting Dr. 
" Blayney and Mr. Coham meant, till it was brought 
" forward in the court. Mr. Meade brought his action 
* € to recover damages for the lofs of his marriage. My 
H daughter fwore fuch was the cafe. I have evidence 



<( under my daughter's own hand-writing, as well as from 
* c other circuni {lances, which authorifeme to fay, that what 
Cf my daughter fworeupon this fubject\va v s moft certainly 
ie not true, and that {he muft know at the time. In fhort, 
4e the greateft and moft important part of my daughter's 
fC evidence in court, if I may judge from her own hand- 
« writing, and many notorious eircunsftances, cannot ke 
(C true. The effect of the trial therefore muft be undone, 
and the characters that have been afperfed upon this 
occafion muft be done juftice to. Upon thefe eondi- 
cs tions alone can my daughter ever be received in my 
u family ; and nothing me can fay will ever alter my 
" opinion upon this fubj eel, becaufe that opinion has been 
ec formed from facls, in which it is not poffible for me 
6< to be deceived." 

The following letter from Mifs Barnfton to Mr. Dau- 
beny feems a prefurnplive proof that no converfation of 
the nature, defcribed by Mifs Barnfton in her evidence 
did pafs between her and Mr. Daubeny in June 1791; 
or if it did pafs, this letter is a pofitive proof that it did 
riot produce the erTecl: (lie fwore it did produce. It is 
dated September 1791, three months after the converfa- 
tion is faid to have palled. 

c< My dear Brother, 

f* I beg to inform you that! came from Aldenham on 
€€ Saturday, exprefsly with the intention of declaring to 
" you what I now give you under my hand-writing, 
" that I was totally ignorant of Mr. Meade's viflt or in- 
4C tention to fee me, which it feems he was determined to 
6i do, if poflible^ if not, to write to me. The next thing 

I beg to declare to you is,, that no frefh' promifes or 



APPENDIX, 



" engagements were the confequence of this meeting, 
" neither being afked by him, or offered by me. You 
<c will perhaps as little believe this, as you did my word 
" the laft time we had a meeting at our houfe; but this 
<c t cannot help; it is fufficient for my own mind when I 
66 declare to you what is true, and know it to be fo. Alas I 
(( it is but too true, that a very different converfation took 
" place between us when Hooker was out of hearing* 
" Mr. Meade told me that I have been the caufe of de- 
ii flroying his character. The will bufinefs, he faid, was 
iC nothing; a little time would fet that to rights, becaufe 
" facts could not be denied. Nor mould he ever have 
" heard fo much on that head, had not the weight of 
{e your character crufhed him, by expelling him firft from 
€C your family and ours in a manner he knew to be un-» 
(( merited. He called upon me often, he faid, by every 
(e open confeffion, to clear him in your eyes, and he fays 
" I have done nothing but deceive him all along. I have 
" been the means ef difuniting the very people who of all 
(( others I was earneftly anxious to unite. And he fays, 
cc he knows it to be as much impoffible for you to believe 
<c him guilty refpe&ing his wife, if you had not firft 
61 taken an unhappy turn againft him with regard to me, 
" In {hort he told me, whatever future intentions I might 
" have towards him, he was afraid his friends would turn 
" their backs on him, if I did not give them up ; for tho* 
" they were ready to lend their utmoft fupport about the 
" will affair, they thought I had ufed him fo ill, they 
" were indignant at feeing him ftill attached to me : and 
" though he will never marry any other woman, yet will 
" he never make any farther addreffes to me, nor even 
" enter into my family, unMs I will give him opportunity 



APPENDIX. 



30.3 



«* of clearing himfelf from that load of infamy and dif- 
s< honour which I have heaped upon him. He vvimed 
<c me to do this while he was in town; he could have 
(< waited on Mr. Sikes and you, but it muft be to you 
< e alone that he would fpeak about me. Both Hooker 
<c and I told him he had better execute the main buimefs 
" firft. In fhort, in his diffracted ftale of mjnd, he let 
" out every thing to Hooker, concluding that he knew all 
<c from me. As for myfelf, I am as wretched as need to 
<e be, or as I well can be, for one who feels confeious of no 
" ill intention. I am lofing the friendfhip of a brother 
ic and fitter, who are dear to me as my life. I am forfeit- 

ing the efteem of a man, who has, as I have well tried, 
<e long fince placed his whole happinefs upon me; I have 
(C deftroyed his character, and ruined his peace of mind. 
u I am accufed of deceiving my only parent, though I 
li have done nothing, nor ever intended, but to facrifiee 
€e my happinefs to hers. I am degraded among my lifters 

and brothers, nay, even in the eyes of my nephews and 
(( nieces, infomuch that I cannot help confeffing my vifit 
~* c here is attended with inexpreflible mortification. Home 
se is the molt tranquil place, becaufe my deareft mother 
te believes me honeft; and when I deceive her, may the 
<f hypocrite's portion be my lot. If becaufe I have not 
u chofen to declare to you all my intentions with the fame 
4C confidence I ufed to do, you are to fufpect me of everv 
u evil intention, and to make other people take it for 
(e granted ; how can you anfwer it to yourfelf, my dear 
(( brother, to make me fo wretched ? If confidence unre- 
< £ ferved, confeffion, forrow, and love, can bring you back 
* f to my afflicted heart, come to me, and reftore me from 
<i a ftate of mifery to happinefs; but alk it not at the ex« 



J04 



APPENDIX. 



6i pence of facrificlng juftice, gratitude^ and everlaftiilg 
affection to a man who I know to be worthy of youi 5 
" better opinion : for, as Mr. Meade fays, though Charles 
* f may have had ever fueh objections to me, yet I know 
« he does not think me guilty of forgery, perjury, or fraud ; 
« c all that I, defire is that he wifties to find me innocent, 
cc and I will take care to prove myfelf fo. God forbid 
" you mould not wifh to fee him clear himfelf from all 
66 fuch charges, my dear brother; all that I entreat you is 
<c not to condemn him or prejudge him." 

The following extract from a letter of Mrs. Daubeny 
to Mifs Bamfton, in Auguft 1791 ? not only proves that 
the fufpicions about the will did not caufe Mifs Bamfton 
to reject Mr. Meade; but it alfo {hews that Mr. Daubeny 
had formed no decided opinion upon the fubjecl:. " The 
c( will bufinefs, though occafionally mentioned, was never 
" confidered as the ground upon which he (Mr. Meade) 
" was given up ; nor would it have been reafonable it 
iC mould, becaufe it had never been proved; for whatever 
€e appearances may be, your brother will never prejudge 
<c any man. With refpecl to the will bufinefs, though 
(e we mall always confider it as totally unconnected with 
<e the prefent fubjecl;, your brother can have no objection 
cc to give you every fatisfaction in his power. He con- 
" {iders himfelf in this cafe as a ftander-bye; all that he 
<c knows upon this bufinefs comes from his brothers; and 
" he is at any time ready to give the matter the moft im- 
ce partial inveftigation. If you choofe to pitch upon any 
<e impartial perfon, who {hall hear all you have to fay for 
<c him on one fide, and all that your brother has to pro- 
<ff duce againft him on the other; Mr. Daubeny will moll 
" gladly meet you upon thofe terms. 



APPENDIX* 



tn September 1803, Mrs* Meade, at her own parti* 
cular requeft, had by appointment an interview with her 
mother for the firft time ft nee the trial and her marriage, 
Mr. and Mrs. Daubeny, Mrs. Mary Barnfton, and two 
Mifs Mafons' being prefent. What pafled at this inter- 
view is very material; and the following account of it is 
taken from Mr. Daubeny's paper, and attefted by Mrs. 
Mary Barnfton and the Mifs Mafons*. Mrs. Barnfton 
called Mrs. Meade cc her loft child ; faid (lie forgave her, 
(c and hoped God would forgive her, and open her eyes 
" to fee her error, that {fie might return to peace." It 
was the intention of Mr. Daubeny and the family to 
confine this interview to the purpofe for which it was. 
requefted, namely, Mrs. Meade's receiving her mother's 
forgivenefs, and not to mention the fubjecl of the trial ; 
but after Mrs. Barnfton had expreffed her forgivenefs in 
the words above-mentioned, Mrs. Meade fat down by 
Mr. Daubeny, and turning round to him faicl, C£ Well, 
" brother, now my mother has received me, why fnould 
" I not be received by the reft of the family ? ;> Mr. 
Daubeny replied, ec that there was no want of charity, of 
(( affection, of feeling towards her; that he moft heartily 
<e forgave all the injury he had received from her; but that 
" juftice muft be done to the injured characters, before 
9t {he could be received into the family : that as the re- 
** prefentative of her father he was bound to fee Mrs. 
** Barnfton's character cleared from the grofs afperfions 
n caft upon it in Mr. Meade's pamphlet; and that he 
" owed it both to the Church and his family to have his 
ic own character cleared from the charge which her per- 
" jury in court had fixed upon it in the world." This 
charge Mrs. Meade attempted to repel. Mr. Daubeny 



806 



APPENDIX. 



then told her, that u his cafe and documents had been 
a laid before two coimfel, vvhofe joint and decided detc'r- 
cc mi nation was, that mould he move for a new trial, the 
" confequence would be, that he would mod certainly 
. e( recover the verdict, and Mrs. Meade as certainly go out 
66 of court a perjured woman.'' Mrs. Meade immedi- 
ately afked, c Why did you not then?' Mr. Daubeny 
replied, 6€ becaufe he had more feeling for the family than 
" me had." Mr. Daubeny then told Mrs. Meade that 
all the papers and documents of every kind had been 
kid' before the. Bimop of Bath and Wells, previous fo 
his entering upon the charge of Chrift- Church ; and 
after the Bimop's full and deliberate examination of 
■them for a week, his judgment was, (i that ihe was moil 
u certainly a perjured woman, if ever there was one; and 
(£ that her mother could not, in juitice to herfelf and fa- 
(S mily, receive her, till me. had acknowledged her conduct, 
'' and made all amends in her power." Mr. Daubeny 
then proceeded to prove to her in what manner {he had 
perjured herfelf. Mrs. Meade acknowledged, that in June 
1791 ftie had totally given up Mr. Meade, and of courfe 
fhe could not deny that it was impoffible that any expref- 
fion uied by him at that time mould be the caufe of her 
.not marrying Mr. Meade, or that he (Mr. Daubeny) could 
fay any thing with that intent: in this relpect therefore 
ihe could not deny that fhe had fworn falfly. Mr. Dau- 
beny next reminded her of her having fworn in court 
that me had her mother's full and free con fen t to marry; 
to this flie could fay nothing, her mother being at her 
elbow. Mrs. Meade acknowledged that me had fome 
recollection of having confefled to Mr. Daubeny,, at Mr. 
Sikes's at Hackney, in September I7$l, that it was her 



Appendix* 



307 



intention to marry Mr. Meade at her mother's death. 
Mr. Daubeny again reminded her of her having fworn in 
court 3 in the' Jane following, that (lie had her mother's 
full and free confent to marry Mr. Meade, and that the 
expreffions faid to be ufed by him (Mr, Daubeny) pre- 
vented the marriage. Was not this, Mr. Daubeny faid,, 
to fwear falfly ? To this fhe made no anfwer. Mr. Dau- 
beny then reminded her of Mr. H. Sawbridge being fent 
in January 1792, by her to Bath, to announce her inten- 
tion to her mother, of marrying Mr. Meade at all events | 
and of her having fworn in court, that words fpoken in 
June 1791, were the caufe of her not marrying Mr. Meade; 
and that in confequence of this falfe evidence a verdi£t 
was obtained. Upon this Mrs. Meade faid, that Mr. 
Meade did not go into court for lofs of marriage, but for 
defamation ; " for," faid fhe, ce when I was afked that 
(c indelicate queftion, whether I meant to marry Mr. 
" Meade, I did not fay I did not." Thus for the pur- 
pofe of gaining Mr. Meade a verdict for defamation, Mrs. 
Meade acknowledged that fhe fwore to an effect which 
was not produced ; that is, fhe fwore that the marriage 
was lo^ at the very time fhe intended to marry ; and me 
actually did marry Mr. Meade about ten days after, the 
carriage being ordered, and other preparations made at the 
time of the trial. The ftate of the cafe, according to Mrs. 
Meade's own reprefentation, is therefore this : words fpo- 
ken in a confidential converfation with her brother-in- 
law, at a time when all idea of her marrying Mr. Meade 
was underftood to be at an end, fhe revealed to Mr. Meade, 
and afterwards, in order to give a criminal confequence 
to thefe words, fhe fwore they produced an efFeci on, 
her mind which they never had produced ; and by this 

X 2 



APPENDIX. 



breach of confidence, and by this falfe evidence, {he pro- 
cured Mr. Meade a verdict againft her brother-in-law. 
Laftly, Mr.Daubeny in the moft folemn manner declared 
that he never had uttered the words attributed to him ; 
and Mrs. Meade confeffed that her evidence was falfe, but 
would not acknowledge that me was a perjured woman, 
becaufe me had no malicious intention ao-ainft Mr. Dau- 

o 

beny: thus me confiders falfe fwearing and perjury as 
different things. 

Mr. Daubeny fent an account of this interview to the 
different branches of the Barnfton family in London, and 
the following anfvver mews their opinion not only of the 
interview, but alfo of Mr. Daube^y's conduct in general 
in this affair. 

iC My dear Sir, London, Sep. 14, 1803. 

sc IT is now only two days fince T had the pleafure of 
" writing to you. On the prefent occafion therefore I 
' ff am rather to be confidered as the fubflitute of Mr. 
€C Snaith; though I think in a matter of fo much interefl 
6e to you and your friends, if I could not have ufed his 
<c pen as the vehicle of my own feelings in fome degree, 
(i I mould have been tempted to have troubled you again 
cc on my account. As it is, however, I have been re- 
ec quefted in a manner which every way falls in with my 
* c own wifhes, to acknowledge the receipt of your letter. 
€c It arrived juft as Mr. Snaith was preparing to take wing 
" for a few days flight to Cheltenham, or he would not 
ec have left the tafkof anfwering it to another. My aunt's 
(( letter having carried Mrs. Sikes to Mannon-houfe-ftreet, 
" to meet your difpatch, (for which me was not a little 
" anxious) juft about the time I called there, the whole 



APPENDIX. 



309 



c< family had an opportunity of joining in one general 
" expreflion of their feeling on the occanon; with fome 
(6 indignation at the manner in which it was brought 
tc about, they all congratulate you on the refult of the 
i( interview. With you they greatly defired that Mrs. 
i( Barnfton might personally forgive her offending daugh- 
i{ ter, before fhe was taken from her for ever; but they 
f* trembled for the immediate effecl: of fuch a meeting 
" upon the good old lady. They cannot therefore dif- 
6( femble their fatisfaction that it is all well over, nor 
u that it has in its conduct and clofe fo greatly ftrength- 
iC ened the caiife of truth and juftice. Your friewds here 
ff have long been too intimately acquainted with all the 
** circumftances of this cruel fchifm to require on their 
cc own account any frefh documents on the fubjecl:; at 
CK the fame time they rejoice at the acceffion of evidence, 
* ( fo important to the conviction of others, as is furnimed 
" by the confeffions, politive and negative, of one whom 
" they lament to think mould have been made the inftru- 
" ment of gratifying the word difpofitions of another; 
66 and feeling, as they do, the extent of your forbearance, 
" they think it due from them to affure you, that they 
<c will not omit any proper opportunity of employing thefe 
" powerful documents to do you that juftice in private, 
C( which family confiderations withhold you from feeking 
" in a more public way ; and which they can never enough 
(( regret, that there appears from the iffue of this interview 
" there is no hope of ever being done to you in a manner 
6C which might heal the breaches of a divided family. 
" vlr. Snaith defired me to fay, that he would endeavour 
" to take Bath in his return from Cheltenham ; and that 
iS he might have the pleafure of meeting you there, would 



310 f 



APPENDIX. 



ce probably give you two or three days notice of his in- 
^ tention. We mail be much obliged by a good account 
u of Aunt Bcmfion, for whom the letter to Mrs. Sikes 
li has made us rather anxious. With kind love, &x. &c«. 
u believe me, 

£c Dear fir, your's truly, 

(< Joshua Watson." 

Mrs. Meade gave a very different account of this inter- 
view in a letter to her fifter Mrs. M. Barnfton, to which 
the following anfvver was fent ; 

" Dear Siller, 

4C ALTHOUGH your letter is written in a ftile as 
(e might lead you to expect no anfwer to it, I ftill owe it 
ec to truth and juftice to proteit againft the grofs mifre- 
(( presentation entertained in it, refpecling what palled 
i( at the interview with your mother. I mall not enter 
* ( into the particulars, becaufe they are to be eftablifhed 
i( by the teftimony of thofe who were prefent, having been 
(i immediately committed to paper by three different per- 
" fons on your departure, and therefore will at all times 
(( fpeak for themfelves; and the contents of your letter 
* f only feem to prove how neceffary the attendance of 
" proper witneffes was upon the occafion. As a fifter, 
" I cannot help deeply lamenting your continuance in 
« wilful falfhoods." 

The above confeffion, and the teftimonies which have 
been produced from original letters and other authentic 
documents, feem to place it beyond a poflibility of doubt 
that Mrs. Barnfton never did give her full and free con- 
fent to the marriage of her daughter with Mr. Meade | 



APPENDIX. 



and ibat the words fpokeri by Mr. Daubeny on the 28th 
of June 1791> fuppofing them to have been fpoken, did 
not produce the effect which Mifs Barnfton fwore they 
did produce. There is alfo as ftrong reafon as the nature 
of the cafe admits, for thinking that Mr. Daubeny did not 
utter the words imputed to him by Mifs Barnfton. They 
are not quoted or mentioned in any of Mifs Barnfton* s 
letters to Mr. Daubeny, or her other relations, fubfequent 
to June 1791 ; and in thefe letters there are fome expref- 
lions fcarcely compatible with this fuppofed converfation. 
No other witnefs was called to prove that Mr. Daubeny 
ever held any fuch language ; and evidence has been pro- 
duced to fhew that he held a different language in the 
family. Nor is Mifs Barnfton's affertion upon this fubject 
fupported by any circumftantial or collateral teftimony; 
and it is, I believe, a rule in evidence, founded in reafon 
and acknowledged in our courts, that where a witnefs is 
convieled of fwearing falfely in one inftance, his or her 
teftimony deferves no credit, or at leaft is not admitted 
as proof upon any other point. It is highly improbable 
that Mr. Daubeny mould fay any thing to Mifs Barnfton 
for the purpofe of preventing her marriage with Mr. 
Meade, when he knew that Mr. Meade had been twice 
refufed by her, and at a time when it was generally un- 
derstood in the family that the affair was entirely at an end. 

The following is Mr. Daubeny's account of the conver- 
fation which palled between himfelf and Mifs Barnfton in 
June 1791 ; he ftates that it was occasioned by the diffe- 
rent language which it was found Mr. Meade held to the 
elde i Mr. Daubeny before he left England, and to Mr, 
Charles Daubeny, on his arrival at Spa, upon the fubjec~t 
ef his late wife's will : Mifs Barnfton having been prefent 



APPENDIX* 



when the conversation pafled at Spa, Mr. C. Daubeny 
was defirousof confirming his account of what Mr. Meade 
then faid by her teftimony, and with this view he read to 
Mifs Barnfton his minutes of the converfation, which were 
to this effecl: " Mr. Meade enlarged much on the cm- 
ec elty of my brothers' reception of him ; that they charged 
s< his wife with having made an unjuft will, and that he 
** had a hand in it. He faid, moreover, that Mary made 
k£ fuch a will, becaufe me was confident that he (Mr. 
<c Meade) would make the fame difpofal of her property 
6e as me herfelf would wifh. With that idea me left it 
€( as me did;, in his hands, that it might be (a lien) a kind 
w of bond or means of keeping up his connexion in the 
" family ; as fhe hoped he would always be considered 
" as a brother in her family; that he had made his will 
m and erafed my brother John's name as executor, (on 
* 6 account of what he (Mr. Meade) reprefented to be his 
e( unkind treatment of him) and had put mine inj and 
" that my brothers would have no reafon to be difTatisfied, 
or fomething to the fame purpofe. He faid, moreover, 
" that Mrs. Meade had done fomething very handfome 
" by his brother, though he did not fay what," Mifs 
Barnfton declared the above, to the belt of her recollection, 
to be the fubilance of what Mr. Meade had faid at Spa. 
Mr. Daubeny then afked her accidentally, without any pre- 
vious intention, whether fhe knew any thing about his lifter's 
making her will, or had feen the fignature of it ; and hap- 
pening to have the fac fimile of it in his pocket-book, 
(which Mr. J. Daubeny had fent not only to Mr. Daubeny, 
but alfo to Mr. Meade, with a view to a private explana- 
tion) he f hewed it to her, and afked her what fhe thought 
of it 5 her anfwer was, "God knows," Not a word 



APPENDIX. 



313 



more paffed on either fide on the fubject of the will. Mifs 
C. Barnllon was at this time fitting down with me at the 
table. She now got up, and walked up and down the 
room. I propofed her accompanying us to Tunbridge, 
to which fhe feemed indifferent. She feemed to ha\^e 
fomething on her mind. After a turn or two, (he faid, 
* c Brother, I was in hopes you could at leaft have been fo 
" far reconciled to Mr, Meade as to have kept up ap- 
u pearances with him." To which my anfwer was, c Kit, 
f you know my chara6ter too well, not to know, that I 

* can never keep up appearances, where there is no reality. 

* After what has pafifed abroad, I never can fee Mr. Meade 
' in the light of an honeft man/ Mr. Daubeny is ready 
to fwear that this was the fubftance of the converfation, 
and the whole of what pafTed relative to his filler's will 
upon that occafion ; and that neither then, or at any 
other time, he ufed the expreffions attributed to him by 
Mifs Barnfton in her evidence upon the trial. 

I cannot but remark that Mr. Meade's papers are drawn 
up with the molt confummate addrefs, and in a manner 
peculiarly calculated to impofeupon the reader: afTertions 
are rarely fupported by any authentic documents, dates 
are feldom. mentioned, and occurrences which happened 
at different times are placed together; the main queflion 
is kept very much out of fight ; collateral and irrelevant 
circumftances are dwelt upon with minutenefs and ear- 
neftnefs 5 much declamation is ufed, and the feelings are 
frequently appealed to, where the judgment only ought to 
be exercifed. It is therefore not matter of furprife that 
fome of thofe who have read Mr. Meade's papers only^ 
tmve formed an opinion favourable to his caufe, 



314 



APPENDIX. 



I think it right to' quote two or three pafTages which 
appear to me to mark a want of that correclnefs of prin- 
ciple which can alone produce uniform right conduct It 
is. acknowledged that Mr. Meade and Mifs Barnfton car- 
ried on a clandeftine correfpondence upon the fubjecl: of 
marriage, in divert violation of a moil folem-n. promife 
>nade by both of them to Mr. Daubeny. Mr. Meade 
endeavours to juftify this, in the following manner in No. 
I. page 9, of his papers, " Although upon bis (Mr.Dau- 
ce beny's) obferving her (Mifs Barnfton's) inclinations to 
?c Mr. Meade, he had obtained a promife that me would 
tc yield them to his; yet when {he found that fuch a com- 
&c pliment to friendfhip might give a wound to her own 
tt happinefs, fhe might, by telling Mr. Daubeny fo, have 
" deprived him of thofe pretences and advantages which 
" in the fequel he fo fuccefsfully urged againft her. But 
" invincible reafons prevented this. For me was per- 
" fuaded, from his general violence in the affair, (and his. 
iC conduct ever fin ce jufti tied that perfuafion) that unhap- 
**. pinefs would be the confequence of her explaining her- 
* c felf abroad; and fhe flattered herfelf it might be avoid- 
4X ed if (lie waited till ihe returned home. If prudence or 
u neceffity forced her toreferve, it was not, as Mr, Daiu 
* c beny fuggefts, from hypocrify. She was unreferved 
" enough in declaring her fentiments to her mother 
i6 and all her friends ; and fhe often and fmcerely lamented 
¥ the neceffity of being referved with Mr. JDaubeny 
4( abroad; but ilie owed him no duties, nor was any 
i e breach of hofpitality committed, for the party were all 
** equal, men and women, brothers and fillers, united to 
" travel at a joint expence." Thus Mr. Meade calls a 
violation of promife, referve ; and he and Mifs Barnfton 



APPENDIX. 



315 



fatisfied themfelves that it was allowable, becaufe Mifs 
Bamfton was not dependant upon Mr. Daubeny, and be- 
caufe they were all travelling at a joint expence. Hence 
it appears that they began with praclifing deceit, which 
was certainly not neceffary, for Mifs Barnfton, as foon as 
the mutual attachment had taken place, had only to tell 
Mr. Daubeny of it, and to write to her mother for her 
confent ; and Mr. Daubeny would probably have defired 
Mr. Meade to leave the party till Mrs. Barnfton's willies 
were known, as he had reafon to think that the connec- 
tion would not be agreeable to her. Indeed Mr. and 
Mrs. Daubeny both repeatedly urged Mils Barnfton to 
write to her mother upon the fubject; but me refufed, upon 
the ground that there was no attachment between her and 
Mr. Meade 3 and (he expremy faid, " Why mould I make 
(e my mother uneafy about nothing?" In fpeaking upon 
the fame fubjecl, Mr. Meade fays, page 34, ec If Mifs 
(e Barnfton or Mr. Meade repented or wifhed to recal 
cc fueh expreffions, what injury did they do, or propofe to 
fc any one living?" Here violation of promife is called 
recalling expreffions, though in fa<Sl not a fyllable was 
faid to Mr. Daubeny, to whom the promife was made : 
nor did Mifs Barnfton write to her mother, although the 
affair was carried on all the time the party continued 
abroad ; and furely this could proceed from no other caufe 
but a belief that the connexion would not be agreeable 
to her mother. This deceit, and this fophiftical mode of 
juftifying it, feem to have led to a difregard for truth in 
Mrs. Meade, which is acknowledged in a letter written in 
anfwer to one {he had received from her mother, accufing 
her of having given evidence in court in direct contra- 
diction to her hand-writing and repeated language in her 



\ 



APPENDIX. 



family: the letter is dated July 1800, and the paffage is 
as follows : u That my oath differed from fome particular 
" letters and expreffions of mine muft of neceffity 
(C have been the cafe, becaufe upon my oath rigid truth 
fC was to be my guide, and I could not prefume upon 
(C referves or concealments, however benevolent the in- 
* tf teution." 

How then does the matter ftand according to Mrs. 
Meade's own confeffion ? Soon after her return from the 
Continent, {he coiifefled that {he pra6tifed deceit, in car- 
rying on a clandeftine correfpondence contrary to her 
promife: in 1800, (lie denies having given falfe evidence 
in court, by acknowledging that {he had not made truth 
Iier guide in her letters and expreffions; and in 1803,-upon 
being preflfed by Mr. Daubeny, fhe confefTed before four 
other perfons* all living and ready to atteft it, two of whom 
are her lifters, that me had been guilty of falfe-fwearing 
at the trial. The progrefs feems io have been a natural 
one, from deceit to untruth, from untruth to falfe-fwear- 
ing. Upon the laft occafion me diftinguimed between 
falfe-fwearing and perjury ; but morality and religion know 
no fuch diftincStion. And indeed throughout this bufi- 
jiefs I think I obferve both in Mr. and Mrs. Meade, and 
efpecially in the latter, a great propenfity to felf-deception. 
Let them now reflect and examine themfelves. Let them 
take a calm and difpaffionate review of their whole con- 
duct, as far as concerns the bufinefs in queftion, from the 
time of their meeting at Spa, to the prefent moment. 
Let them not rely on the deciflon of a fallible human tri- 
buna', but remember that they muft hereafter appear 
before the tribunal of an infallible Judge, Let them aik 
themfelves, whether they have invariably adhered to the 



APPENDIX. 



ffidifpenfable laws of honour, juftice, and truth, And in 
particular, let Mrs. Meade, after confidering her evidence 
in court, afk herfelf the following queftions, Did my 
mother ever give me her full and free confent to marry 
Mr. Meade? Was my marriage with him really pre- 
vented by Mr. Daubeny's converfation with me on the 
2Sth of June? Did Mr. Daubeny really ufe the expreflions 
I attributed to him ? Thefe are plain queftions, and let 
the anfwers to them be plain and fimple, without evanon 
or cafuiftry. With the documents I have had before me, 
I conceive it impoffible that Mrs. Meade can confeien- 
tiouOy anfwer thefe queftions in the affirmative; but at 
the fame time, I am fully aware that it requires great 
firmnefs of mind to make an explicit confeffion in a cafe 
like this : that firmnefs can be derived from this conn- 
deration only, that however humiliating confeflion may 
be thought in this world, it will certainty be profitable in 
the next. Let Mr. and Mrs. Meade confiderthat they have 
done their utmoft to deprive Mr. Daubeny of his cha- 
racter, they ought therefore to do their utmoft to reftore 
it in the public opinion. Mr. Daubeny forgives them 
upon Chriftian principles; but while they perfift in afTert- 
ing falfe evidence to be true, to the injury of his character, 
neither morality nor religion requires that he or his im- 
mediate connexions mould live with them upon terms of 
friendfhip; this would be a fort of acknowledgement of 
the truth of their ftalemcnt. Mr. and Mrs. Meade prefs 
for oblivion and reconciliation; it is obviouuy the inte- 
reft of the offending party to do fo. But this cafe is not 
like a common quarrel or diiagreement in families where 
both parties may be to blame, yet both equally free from 



APPENDIX,, 



every thing which can be called criminal. Here one of 
the parties muft be guilty, and juftice mould firft be done 
to the innocent, and reparation made the foundation of 
reconciliation. 

I think it due to Mr. Daubeny to add, that after amort 
attentive inveftigation of the feveral charges brought 
againft him by Mr. and Mrs. Meade, I am perfectly 
fattsted that he has in every refpecl acled with the ftri&eft 
propriety, and as a man of honour; and I think that the 
motives which induced him to fubmit to the verdic% 
although he was allured by his counfel that it might be fet 
.alide by a new trial, deferve particular approbation, 

G. LINCOLN* 

Deanery-House, St. Paui/s, 
Mai; 13th, 1805 r 



{ G. ) 

Correspondence between the Bishop of Lincoln 
a nd Mr, Meade. 

TYTS Lordfliip has already quoted his firft letter, when 
- he applied to the Rev. Dr. Randolph for Mr; 
Meade's papers. Dr. Randolph, in confequence of that 
application, wifned Mr. Meade to convey to his Lord- 
fhip fuch papers as he thought might fattsfy his mind ; 
and Mr. Meade accordingly lent fuch as he conceived 
muft anfwer the purpofe ' s accompanying them with the 
following letter: 



££ To the Bishop of Lincoln. 

ec Chatleigh, March 25, 1805. 

f f DR. Randolph has communicated to Mr. Meade 
se the Bifhop of Lincoln's letter, and requefted him to 
£( fend to his Lordfliip his papers relative to his un- 
" happy difpute with Mr. Daubeny. Mr. Meade will 
6£ with pleafure comply with the Bifhop's wiflies; for, as 
f< he never obtrudes his papers on any one, fo he never 
cc refufes them when there is a liberal and candid motive 
6£/ of enquiry. 

" As for himfelf and his family, he has no intereft; he 
*' has nothing to gain by any decilions in his favour. 



320 



APPENDIX. 



€C And fupported by the judgment of his country, by the 
<c teftimony of his own conscience, and by the etteem of 
<c thofe who know him and his caufe, he has nothing to 
i& fear from enquiry, and nothing to wifh for but peace. 

" Mr. Meade laments the reftlefsnefs and activity with 
ee which Mr. Daubeny obtrudes a private quarrel of twelve 
" years Handing on fuch utter Grangers to all the parties 
" as the Bifliop of Lincoln appears to be; but he feels 
iC little folicitude from any imprefiion which ex parte 
t( ilatements may have made on his Lordfhip's mind. 
" If fuch has been the cafe, he perfuades himfelf that it 
(e will be of fhort duration. 

" Mr. Meade will only add, that if there be any point 
u on which his Lordfhip deli res farther explanation, he 
ec will be happy to give it;- confident that any reflections 
6C which the Bifhop may have heard on the characters of 
(c Mr. and Mrs. Meade, will appear to be the fabrications 
6( of an inveterate enemy; and that his Lordlhip will 
6i have to declare, as the* Bifhop of Durham has done 
ee on two points which Mr. Daubeny has lately aflerted 
* e to him on this fubjecl:, that they were inventions of his 
* e own without any foundation in truth. 

« T. M." 

* The reader will have feen (Appendix, letter D.) that Mr, 
Meade had the befl authority for this affertion. Mr. Meade may 
even add to what is there faid, that that very refpe&able gentleman 
whom his Lordfhip employed as his friend on this occafion, aflured 
Mr. Meade, " That the Bifhop of Durham had not only difcovered 
" the ftcries he had heard from Mr. Daubeny to be abfolutely 
" without foundation, but that his Lordfhip would certainly declare 
" it wherever his name might have been ufed ; and that it would be' 
V injuftice to his Lordfhip's character to fuppofe that he would not 
" do fb." The lady to whom the Bifliop of Durham applied, gave 
Mr. Meade aflurances equally ftrong of his Lorclihip's conviction. 



APPENDIX 



321 



In about feven weeks the Bifhop fent to Mr. Meade a 
manufcript book, and with it a letter. 

" Sir, Deanery, St. Paul's, May 13, 1305. 

<c I am forry that rfry engagements in town have not 
C( allowed me to fend you the enclofed papers fooner. I 
fe was not without hope, when I entered into an examina- 
ce tion of a fubjecl: upon which opinions were fo much 
t€ divided, that it might be poflible to form a judgment 
f{ which would vindicate the characters of both the parties 
cc from all material blame. Believe me, fir, I moft fin- 

cerely lament that I have been difappointed in this 
fe hope. But mould the plain ftatement of facts, upon 
rc which I can form but one opinion, lead you and Mrs. 
<e Meade to fee the fubjecl: in a different point of view 
<c from that in which you feem hitherto to have con* 
€t fidered it, and produce a reconciliation which would 
* c be honourable to both parties, I fhall feel truly happy 
ie in having contributed in any degree to fo defirable an 
u event. 

*' I am, fir, your obedient fervant, 

<f G. Lincoln/' 

<c P.S. I ought perhaps to have obferved, that none of 
t( the evidence contained in the enclofed papers was pro- 
<( duced in court upon the trial." 



On nattily running over his Lordfiiip's manufcript, 
Mr. Meade had not fuch compofure of fpirits as he would 
wifh to poffefs in repelling an attack that required mature 
thinking, and the advice of friends. His firlt letter to 

y 



3.22 



APPENDIX, 



the Biihop was of little importance, and the reader fHall 
not be troubled with it. He obferved in it, £i that he: 
" could fay little more than that he had received the paper., 
iC and that there was error in all the reafoning." 

In a few weeks he wrote the ^following letter* to his 
LordOiip, to propofe a perfonal meeting. 

" My Lord, June 19th, 1805. 

• ce IN my letter to your Lordfhip, after I had hardly 
i ' £ run over the manufcript you fent me, I mentioned that 
Ci I fhould probably ftate to you fome fa£ts which I 
c: thought might change the fentiments you exprefTed in 
^ that manufcript. I am now in town, and fhall be 
i( ready to wait on you for the purpofe, if you choofe it. 
***When your wilh.es to fee papers of mine were conveyed 
Si to me, it did not occur to my mind that you had any 
(< intentions but of endeavouring to efTec~t peace in a di- 
£6 vided family, and my chief object was to con vey to you 
* e a detail of what had been done for that purpofe, toge- 
ee therwith a view of the influence which feemed to have 
ec prevented it. In my papers themfelves I protefted 
(C againft .re-trying, without jury, witnefTes, oath, or 
* e reilraint, a caufe which had been decided already ; and 
V as you appeared to with to have the papers during the 
(C few days you were at Lymington, I fent them without 
<tC delay, in confidence that they were going to a Bifhopy 

* Mr. Meade's letters being very long, and often repetitions of 
what has appeared in the preceding pamphlet, to fpare the reader 
he has given only extracts, which he has done faithfully, to the 
beft of his judgment. Mr. Meade's original letters are in the 
Bifhop's hands; the drafts for them in Mr. Meade's, where thofe 
concerned may fee them* The Bifhop's letters are giyen Verbatim^ 



APPENDIX* 



323 



ff and to an arbitrator* of peace, who might have farther 
" communication with me. But finding that you have 
" taken up an opinion very different from my expectations, 
ce and I believe on very miftaken ground, I am advifed 
" by my friends to point out to you thofe miflakes into 
" which we conceive you have fallen; and which in every 
(C eflential matter are obvious. You will be fomewhat 
<( furprized to fee that even the direct afTertion refpecting 
" the late Bifhop of Bath and Wells, is directly contra- 
" dieted by his fon Dr. Mofs, in his letter to me in Ja- 
iC nuary 1799. You will be convinced that the account 
(C Mrs. Tomline gave to a lady at Bath, of Mrs. Meade's 
(c wedding-day being fixed previous to the trial, is utterly 
" unfounded. You will find alfo that a fimilar ftory which 

* Mr. Meade at this time heard that the Bifhop endeavoured to 
vindicate his conduct, as under the character of " an Arbitrator,'* 
although it was clear to common fenfe that Mr. Meade had never 
conftituted him as fuch ; nor did his Lordfhip exprefs fuch art 
idea previous to his getting Mr. Meade's papers; nor did Mr. 
Meade ever apply to him at all. Mr. Meade ufed the above expref- 
fion, to meet the Bifhop on his own ground. But what moft furprifed 
him was, that at this time he received letters from Mr. Daubeny 
which carried with them an appearance of the Bifhop (although 
under the aflumed character of an arbitrator) having privately com- 
municated to Mr. Daubeny fome of Mr. Meade's papers, or their 
contents, on points which did not enter into his Lordfhip's judgment, 
and which he had not even touched upon; for Mr. Daubeny de- 
manded of Mr. Meade in thofe letters " the charges which the latter 
" had laid before the Bifhop of Lincoln refpecting the wills of Mr. 
*' and Mrs. Barnfton, and threatening in cafe of refufal to apply to 
" the Bifhop for them." To which Mr. Meade replied, " that the 
" Bifhop of Lincoln did not communicate to him any of thofe 
" papers which Mr. Daubeny had requefted his Lordfhip to read » 
" and he prefumed that the Bifhop, as an honeft man, did not cbm- 
" municate to Mr. Daubeny thofe papers which his Lordfhip had 
" requefted from Mr. Meade." 

Y 2 



324 



APPENDIX. 



f* {he related to the fame lady at Bath, c of a carnage 
<c * being befpoke before the trial/ is equally without 
ct foundation. 

C( I beg to fay, that I mean nothing difrefpe&ful to 
ci your Lord fhip; but you will give me leave to obfervc 
i( an error into which you have yourfelf fallen, when 
" quoting from a paper of mine, you defcribe me as 
66 c juftifying the violation of promifes, becaufe Mr. Dau- 
£( 6 beny and I travelled at a joint expence/ I fyave now 
u the paper before me from which you quote, and I ven- 
tc ture to fay that you mult be as ready to correct yous 
Ci error, as I am to mark it. 

u I have the honour to be, &c. 

" Thefe are only a few of the errors in your paper." 



To this the Bifhop of Lincoln replied as follows: 
<c Sir, Buckden Palace, June 24, 1805. 

€i YOUR letter, dated June 19th, and directed to the 
<c Deanery, St. Paul's, in which you defire to fee me, has 

been forwarded to me at this place. If I had been in 
u town, I mould have been ready to hear from yourfelf 
fe any thing which you might have wifhed to ftate tome; 
G< but as I do not expect to be there for feveral months,* 

* The Bifhop appears to have loft the opportunity of correcting 
his miftakes, by falling into that error which milled others ; as 
Mrs. Barnfton, Mrs. M. Barnfton, &c. who, after hearing volumes 
of calumny againft Mrs. Meade, were feduced into a perfuafion that 
they ought never to fee her. The reafon for which was plain 
enough; " truth would have come out, and fallacy would have 
st been expofed." Even their letters ufually contained a command, 

that no anfwer mould he given." But how came the Bilhop of 
Lincoln to run into fuch a trap I . When he ftepped forward, uncalled 



APPENDIX. 



325 



w I mult beg leave to trouble you in writing with a few 
" obfervations upon the contents of your laft letter, and 
ie alfo of that which I received from you, dated May 18. 
" It certainly would have been a fource of great fatisfac- 
<e tion to me if I could have been the means of reftoring 
u peace in a divided family; and with that view I took 
6 * the liberty of ftating without refer ve where the blame 
t( appeared to me to lie, and of calling upon the offending 
u . party, in the molt folemn manner I could, to make that 
6i fort of acknowledgment which I thought molt likely to 
46 lead to this very deniable objecl. Be allured, fir, that 
tc what I faid upon this point proceeded from no unkind 
" motive towards you and Mrs. Meade, but from a real 
<6 regard to your moft fubflantial and lafting interefts. If I 
<f had not looked beyond this world; if I had not thought 
<e that the facred laws of religion and morality had been 
iC violated; I mould moft certainly not have ufed the 
i( ftrong expreflions which I did. 

<£ I have read both your letters with all the attention in 
66 my power, and I muft take the liberty of faying that 
u they do not contain a fingle circumftance tending to 
iC invalidate the conclusions, which I have drawn. In 
(e drawing thefe conclufions, I have not relied upon the 
" alfertion of Mr. Daubejiy, or of any other perfon y I 
" have in every inftance quoted my authorities, and you 
" have not even attempted to mew that my inferences are 

for, to reverfe a judgment of law, and to overthrow characters, was 
it not his duty to fee and hear both fides ? Was he not bound by 
every law which mould govern men, at leaft to reftrain the impa- 
tience and publication of his attack, until he could fee that party 
who had allured him that in every page of his paper there were 
impofmons and error? But a fnare feems to have been laid, and 
his Lordfnip ran into it ! 



326 



APPENDIX. 



te unjuft. Granting every thing which you mention to 
&<r be correct and accurate, my authorities and concluflons 
€C will remain unaffected. The evidence which I have 
<c produced was not before the court at the trial; if it had, 
iC I am perfuaded that the fentence would have been dif- 
" te ferent. If the Bifhop of Bath and Wells did not pfo- 
" nounce Mrs. Meade perjured, he gave an unequivocal 
<c proof of his being fatisfied with refpecl to Mr. Dau- 
ce beny, by licenfing him to the Free-Church at Bath, 
u after a full inveftigation of the cafe between you and 
tf Mr. Daubeny ; and I have Dr. Mofs's authority to fay, 
(e that his father did exprefs the moft complete fatisfac- 
<e tion with refpect to Mr, Daubeny's character. The late 
(C Archbifhop of Canterbury, who was confulted as being 
u a fubfcriber to the Free-Church, gave his full confent 
< c ~and approbation to Mr. Daubeny's appointment to the 
<c Free- Church. The prefent Bifhop of Salifbury, in 
ee whofe diocefe Mr. Daubeny has a living, has lately 
ee given a ftrong proof of his good opinion of him.* The 
ce Bifhop of Durham, in two letters which I have received 
ee from him fince I left town, fays, e With the cha- 
* 6 € ra&er of Mr. Charles Daubeny I am well acquainted 5 

* Mr. Meade leaves it to the common fenfe of every reader to 
eftimate this mode of reafoning. If he had thought proper to reft 
on fuch arguments, he too might have quoted authorities ; perhaps 
he might have ventured to name every perfon, without exception, 
who has heard his ftatement. He is not without the authority of 
venerable bifhops to oppofe to his Lordmip; the late Bifhop of Ox- 
ford wrote to him that the cafe was fo clear, that he thought Mr. 
Meade gave himfelf unnecefTary trouble to write on it at all. Mr. 
Meade has the original ; and he relates the circumftance only be- 
caufe he would meet the Bifhop of Lincoln on every ground, evea 
when his Lordmip adopts authorities in the place of reason and proof, 



APFKNDrX. 3E7 r 

c * * and have always underftood, from thofe who know' 
" c him belt, that his character is~not onlyabove* the reach 
**• e of cenfure, but even of fufpicion. 5 ( Of Mr. Daubeny's 
" e merits I have already written in a language, with which 
e( c the warmeft of his friends niuft be fatisfied. That I 
" * miitook what fell from him in converfation refpecting 
" c Dr. Blayney's letter, I readily admit; and that in 
u 6 confequence I made ufe of terms to his difadvantage.' 
" c As foon as I difcovered my miflake, I endeavoured, 
<{ e and continue endeavouring, to feize every opportunity 
(i ( of doing him ample juftice. You have my free leave 
e< ( to give every degree of publicity to this declaration 
ce e which you may judge expedient/ 

" Mr. Daubeny's conduct upon the continent might' 
" have been exactly what you ftate it to have been, and 
" yet it would not juftify a breach of promife in you and 
ft Mrs. Meade; much lefs would it affect the queftions, 
"whether Mrs. BarnrTon gave her confenttoher daughter's 
i( marriage, or whether the words faid to have been fpoken 
4f by Mr. Daubeny prevented the marriage. I by no 
<c means controvert any thing you fay refpecting Mrs. 
u Meade's conduct fubfequent to the trial, or the degree' 
" of eftimation in which her character is held by her ac- 
" quaintance, or in the neighbourhood in which {he lives.' 
tff Whether the wedding-day was or was not fixed before 
(( the trial, or whether the carriage was or was not or-' 
* 6 dered; it is certain that Mrs. Meade, in January 1792, 
i( announced to her mother her intention of marrying, " 
{C and that fhe actually did marry ten days* after the trial a 



* She neither did announce her intention of marrying, as ftated 
hy the Bifhop, nor did me actually marry ten days after the trial. 



328 



APPENDIX. 



" Mrs. Tomline defires me to refer you to Mifs Maclainc 
u for a more correal ftatement of what Ihe faid to her in 
(e private conversation as the friend of her After, who 
e( alone was prefent. Mrs. Tomline recollects having 
€< faid to Mifs Maclaine, c me underftood the marriage of 
<( c Mrs. Meade was determined upon before the trial, 
" 6 (not that the day was fixed 5) and that even the car- 
u c riage had been previoufly ordered:' but me is equally 
<c confident that fhe added at the fame time that e thefe 
6e e circumftances then refted upon Mr. Daubeny's au- 
u c thority ; that it was the Biihop's intention to apply 
" 6 to Mr. Meade for his papers ; that his opinion would 
u c be founded wholly upon indifputable evidence; and 
(< c that till both fides of the queftion had been examined, 
u s it was impoffible to form a decided opinion with re- 
u 6 fpect to alTertions.'f Mrs. Tomline defires me to fay 
i( further, that from that time to the prefent hour me has 
i( never mentioned any of the circumftances, or given 
cc any opinion upon the fubjecl:, except to her lifter; con- 
€i fidering it as improper in her, to fay any thing upon 
(e the fubjec~t, till I had fent my opinion to you and Mr. 
s< Daubeny, and fhe has never fince been in company 
H where it has been mentioned. We both however beg 
" to be underftood as thinking ourfelves at liberty to ex- 
" prefs our conviction, whenever we fee proper occafion, 
ie that Mr. Daubeny's character is fully vindicated from 
<e every charge brought againft him in confequence of 
" this unhappy aft air; but in doing this, we mail ftudi- 

f Admitting this ftatement to be correct, it would then appear 
that thefe unfounded ftories were firft to be circulated by the Biihop's 
family, to poifon the minds of Mr. Meade's friends, and afterwards 
the JBi/hop was. to enquire into their truth as an arbitrator! ! ! 



APPENDIX. 329 

** oufly avoid, as far as may be, all difcuflion of Mrs* 
** Meade's conduct. 

" I am, Sir, your obedient fervant, 

" G. LINCOLN/' 

Mr. Meade in reply wrote two letters, from which the 
following are extracts. 

Mr. Meade to the Bifhop of Lincoln. 

" My Lord, June 29, 1805. 

<c AS your letter proves nothing in reply to mine, I 
6< beg to tell you fo, that you may not mifconftrue my 
u filence. And your Lordfhip having voluntarily entered 
" on this bufinefs, I will not trouble you with apologies 
" for another letter, though it may be a long one. Your 
Si perfuafion that you have fully vindicated Mr. Daubeny, 
<e is a fubjecl: on which it is needlels to exprefs my opi- 
" nion, becaufe it is of little concern to me. The afier- 
(t tion is no doubt a lingular one from a private perfon, 
*f who fought out and liftened to one party, and did not 
" fee the other ; although Mrs. Tomline affured a lady in 
<( Bath of your impartiality, and that you were deter- 
" mined not to liften to parties or to partifans. It is the 
" attack on my wife that alone concerns me; it is, as 
(< your Lordfhip exprelfes it, <e your endeavours'* to 
ce prove, that fhe is a perfon of loft character, that may be 
<c worth my notice. It is the application to her of fuch 
" expreffions, as, c convicted of falfe-fwearing, and 
" ' being thereby loft to all credit,' that may induce my 
€< attention, or that of her friends and relatives. And 
u truly they may well wonder at your paper, when the 



ground of one of your objections had fuch an effect on' 
* c an Archbilhop's mind, c that if-he had no other proof 
u s of her integrity, that alone would have convinced him 
® £ * of it V And another eminent divine who alfo carefully 
<c examined the fame iubje&, has expreffed himfelf in a 
4C letter to his friend in terms of the warm eft efteeni and 

admiration of what your -Lordmip condemns . 

ec My laft letter having only profeffed to lead yon to- 
* e fufpend your opinions, I ftated my readinefs to give 
^ yon reafons for if ; and therefore I went into no proofs. 
u How can you fay then that I difproved nothing? But 
**• is it nothing to point out direct untruths and mifrepre- 
* c fentations t I proved that one confident unqualified 
u . affertion was abfolutely unfounded, ft is reeked in 
" your paper, that 6 Bifhop Mois pronounced Mrs, Meade 
£C . c perjured, if ever a woman was fo/ I proved that his 
* c liordfliip * never pronounced her perjured, nor ever 
" c faid, or wrote, or encouraged the writing or faying, 
tf£ ( - any thing whatever, that reflected on her character.* 

64 Do not evade this point by telling me the bifhop 
* c had . a good opinion of Mr. Daubeny. That is nothing 
* r to the purpofe. I am only fure that the Bifhop pofi- 
^ lively denied what Mr. Daubeny pofitively afferted 

refpecting Mrs. Meade, and what you have recited from? 
i( Mr. Daubeny. • . . * 

i{ Is it nothing to difprove ftories, related from Mrs. 
f< Tomline as facls, and recited alfo in your paper j fto-* 
f« ries utterly without foundation, invented to impofe on 
(i the incautious ; difproved by Mr. Goddard's corres- 
« c pondence with Mrs, Meade's uncle, and even by a 
« eoachmaker in Long- Acre 1 You are even miftaken 
« in Rating the time of. Mrs, M^ade J Amarriage 3 although 



APPENDIX. 



331 



€c fo extreme to mark what you call an inaccuracy in 
" others. Is it nothing to {hew how your Lordfhip has 
<( mifreprefented me, and argued from that mifreprefeu- 
<f tation to injure my character? I have nothing to do 
<( with the opinions you quote in favour of Mr. Daubeny's 
ec character; and I fcorn to quote teftimonies in favour of 
<c my wife, of whom there is but one opinion among the 
i( good and wife who know her. If JVIr. Daubeny has 
(( calumniated her, his writing well or his knowing muck 
" will be but a poor palliation for him. I neither afk or 
iC care whether all thofe from whom you proclaim .his 
(( character, ever faw the man when they praifed the theo*. 
" logian. I never trouble myfelf with his character, I 
" act only in defence of my own. But as you dwell on 
s i the Bifhop of Durham, truth enables me to fay, that 
<s after he had attentively perufed all Mr.Daubenyhad to lay 

before him, ten years ago, and had as attentively heard 
ce my cafe, his Lordfhip gave an opinion now before me-, 
<c which fo difpleafed Mr. Daubeny, that the Bifhop often 
<c faid, he would not for many years fpeak to his Lord* 
6C {hip. And as to the {lory respecting Dr. Blayney's 
Ci opinion, the letters now on my table from Mrs. Blay- 
fi ney, and from that refpectable clergyman whom the 
(( Bifhop- of Durham employed to enquire into the truth 
<c of that ftory, both prove it an impontion, and that his 
(C Lordfhip having made enquiry, expreffed himfelf 
" fatisfied there was no foundation for the ftory. In 
<% your letter you fay, ' that you quoted authorities, and 
e: f that I have not fhewn your inferences to be unjuit.* 

How could I ? You have never feen me, nor any om 
i e on my part, nor did I know what your object was, 
ff yntil I faw your manufcript of forty-one pages. Con- 



9&£ APPEND I Xo 

* c verfing during three weeks with Mr* Daubeny, with 
* c none but his party, your Lordfhip never wifhed to fee 
" a friend of mine; nor in truth did I even know that 
* e you were in Bath,, when you were judging me, with my 
sc enemy at your elbow as a coimfellor. 

6C It is impoffible to go into many proofs in a letter; 
* f but I would afk your Lordfhip a few quelUons, which* 
* f may induce you to wifh you had been a little more 
€C cautious. Did yon ever enquire who conveyed to Mrs,., 
* c Bamflon the report of her daughter's evidence? or 
** whether {he fairly knew what it really was; or in whofe 
66 ftyle of writing the letters were, which are produced 
cc as her's; or what thofe perfons thought of them to whom 
f< they were addreffed ? Did you know that before the 
** trial it was threatened that {he mould oppofe her daugh- 
* c ter*s evidence; and that k was afferted after the trial, 
*' that {he would have oppofed it, if me had known it > 
&c Did you ever hear that my attorney (by his miftake 
** indeed) fubpeenaed Mrs. Barnfton, and that hearing of 
iS her agitation I difpenfed with her and her filler on. 
* c account of their age and diftrefs ? Did you enquire 
* tf what was really the verdict ? for Lord Kenyon's ques- 
* c tion, and the jury's reply, would have rendered much 
<e of your reafoning nugatory. And as I had a plot to 
€C deceive Mr. Daubeny, and to obtain Mifs Barnfton, 
* ff did you know that I never thought of going to the 
€c party until after fix months folicitation from Mr a 
u Daubeny ? 

6i And now I will haften to the chief objects of my 
€f letter without attending to your general opinions, it not 
" being important to me, whether in thefe you are right 
* f or wrong. The points at iflue between your Lordfhip 



APPENDIX. 



3S3 



« and me are direct falfehoods which have been aflerted 
" refpecting me, and are recited in your paper. 

" The ftories which a lady in Bath underftood from 
Mrs. Tomline, being difavowed by the latter, I infift 
" upon it that they be given up as unfounded by your 
i( Lordfhip, they having obtained a place in your long 
** paper. I declare them to be abfolutely falfe, I refer 
** you to proofs, and I pledge my honour to what I fay, 
4 * There is not a fhadow of foundation for the calumny* 
" I mint now addrefs myfelf immediately to your 
C£ Lordfhip on your own account, and I call upon you 
<{ as a Bifhop, and as a man of confcience, to do jufiice, 
" You applied for a paper of mine, and you have rnif- 
" quoted and mifreprefented it, and on that mifreprefen- 
u tation you have attacked and argued againft the moral 
** character of my wife and myfelf. I hereby call on you 
<c to acknowledge your error, to retract that attack, and 
<4 all the arguments built upon it. It is nothing to 
<( the purpofe what your peculiar opinion may be of the 
cc binding force of promifes, though obtained by decep- 
f< tion ; I have only to do with a fact concerning myfelf. 
* c I aver, and I have proved, that you have directly mis- 
i£ reprefented me, and that on that foundation you have 
<: argued to the injury of my good name, 

M The paper I fent you is now before me; it was even 
e< noted by fome one while your Lordfhip had it, noted 
" in ill-fpelt Italian, and falfely correcting me in the age 
€( of my wife. I truft your Lordfhip wiLl be as ready 
(e to acknowledge the errors into which you have fallen, as 
" you were, to point out the duty of it to others. And 
c < affuring you that in fupporting my good name, and 
u what is equally dear to me, the good name of my wife, 



334 



APPENDIX. 



I have never meant, and I hope you will not perceive 
any thing perfonally difrefpe&ful to you. 

u I remain, &c. &c. 

" T. Meade. m 

No reply was given to this. 

Mr. Meade to the Bifhop of Lincoln* 

My Lord, July 14th. 



ec 



& _ I cannot help again calling on you to a£t up 

€e to the principles you have laid down. When T repro- 
££ bated the charges againft my wife, and wrote to you 

that I was ready to meet and convince you of their 
€( falfehood, you fay that I proved nothing. When I 
* e adopt your mode of reafoning, and fix on fome points, 
cs and completely prove them to be falfe, in order to give 
(i you an opportunity of exercifing your own pofition, 
cc e that a perfon once detected in falfehood is not to be 
6C 6 afterwards credited when I prove that what you 
€< recited on the authority of Mr. Daubeny is falfe, as to 
66 Bifhop Mofs's pronouncing Mrs. Meade perjured, you 
(C quit the untenable ground of Mr. Daubeny's veracity, 
" and tell me, that the Bifhop had a good opinion of 
(C him, and licenfed him to the Free-Church. When I 
cc refer you to Admiral Stanhope for a falfehood afferted 
ce in his name refpe&ing me, your Lordfhip takes no 
C( notice of it. When I declare the ftories related by 
ec Mrs. To ml in e to be utterly without foundation, you 
cc reply, e that fhe told them on Mr. Daubeny's autho- 
" ( rity, and that fhe faid you intended afterwards to 
* c 6 enquire.* 

<e When the whole life and character of Mrs. Meade 
i€ are mentioned to you as being of themlelyes fufficient 



proof ttgaitsft the guilt imputed to hfcVJ you pronounce' 
Kf her character to be nothing to the purpofe; yet witlr 
** an air of confidence you produce" as proof for Mr; 
H Daubeny, that fome Biniops thought highly of hinvas 
fc a theologian. And when I prove that your Lordlhip' 
se mifreprefented me, you fay it is nothing to the other 
(C points. 

" Is this the honourable amends you- make for -the 
<c {lain you -have endeavoured to fix on Mrs. Meade's 
<c character ? , Is not this protecting a favourite theoio- 
<e gian at theexpence of juftice, candour, and innocence? 
c< As to your declining to diicufs Mrs. Meade's character 
*' in future, I would hail it as a figri of your beginning 
<£ to fufpec\ that your difcuffions and your exertions have 
<c been halty and unjuft. And as you called on Mrs, 
¥ Meade for that ftrength of mind that enables us to con- 
& fefs the truth, though to our temporal difgrace, let me 
** intreat you to receive your own excellent advice from 
* s the pen of a layman. 

" Confefs the iiory abc4.1t Biihop Mofs to be falfe, and 
4 6 give up the reafoning you have built' on it. Do the 
"■.fame by the ftories related by Mrs. Tomline ; and ae- 
iC knowledge that the arguments you brought again!!: my 
<e character, on the foundation of a paper which you had 
iC yourfelf mifreprefented, were unfairly applied. 
• iC When you have done this, I will give you farther 
iC proofs on proofs, that you have been deluded in other 
" points by mifreprefentations, and by that bias which 
i\ feems to have blinded your eyes and {hut up your ears. 

" Afk yourfelf, my Lord, whether you have acted 
fcs ' with impartiality and juftice, whether you have done a? 
ii vqu would be done by. Place yourfelf in my jhuation,- 



APPENDIX, 



** and then confider the outrage offered to the honour and 
** good name of my wife, and you will yourfelf juftify the 
" part I have a&ed. 

€< Elevated though you are, we are both equally to be 
^judged by God and by man. 

<c I have your own authority for the difficulty of con* 
K feffing errors ; to you it muft be doubly difficult after 
* € the hafty fteps you have taken ; but it will be doubly 
" honourable to you ; and I require it of you once more^ 
<( as a man, as a Chriftian, and as a bilhop. 

u I remain, &c. Sec. 

« T. Meade/' 

No anfwer being given to thefe letters, and Mr. Meade 
having drawn up a reply to his Lordfhip, wrote once 
more to him. 

Mr. Meade to the Bimop of Lincoln. 

" Chatley-Lodge, Sept. 17, 1805« : 

c: My Lord, 

" I HAVE juft finimed a reply to your Lordfhip's 
** paper of forty -one pages; in doing which, various occu- 
(( pations have much interrupted me. 

<c I believe I have left no part untouched. 

" Under an affront to my wife, fo public and unpro- 
(e voked, under fuch expreffions and mocking charges as 
<e are contained in your paper, fomething muft be done* 
" What that may be, muft depend on advice, But before 



t 



.APPENDIX. 337 

u t proceed farther, T would once more fay to your Lord- 
" fhip, that if reflection has opened your eyes, and you 
<f are difpofed to acknowledge the grofs impontions prac- 
ce tifed on you ; I am ftill ready to accept your acknow- 
<e ledgments. Confcious of my own motives, I feel no 
" humiliation in thus condefcending to write, again to a 
" perfon who, after having circulated unheard-of charges 
<( againft my wife, declined to anfwer two letters written 
i( by me, pointing out fome of your errors, and propofing 
<( to convince you of the reft. 

" I am not one of thofe men who like to fpeak evil of 
" dignities. Educated a member of the eftabliihed church, 
fc and I truft a fincere one, I am not indifferent to the 
** wounds which our religion often receives from the con- 
<( duct of its members. 

" There are few cafes more marked than this in 
" which we are concerned. 

ee It will not be confidered as an indifferent matter 
<( that unfounded ftories and palpable mifreprefentations 
" are circulated againft a lady, in order previoufly to de« 
" grade her, whofe character it is intended to deftroy. 

(e Your Lordfhip is pleafed to fay, in your letter dated 
r * in July, c that you mould difcufs Mrs. Meade's conduct 
* f c as little as may be.' I reject and I deprecate your 
<c coneeffion. I fear only private ftories, and private 
* e communications. Let her conduct be but fairly dis- 
c: cuffed, and both her innocence and her enemies' difgrace 
" muft be manifefted. But if your Lordfhip really mean 
n to reftrain your difcuffions, what do your relations mean 
" by circulating at this time the charges againft Mrs. 
(i Meade under your name ? 

z 



338 



APPENDIX. 



tc Can yourLordfhip, even after what you have heard,** 
iC Hill perfift in charging perjury ? Will you ftill de- 
" fend the expreffions you have applied to Mrs. Meade, 

* ^he reader has already feen the weaknefs of the pretences 
to wound Mrs. Meade. The Bifhop refls much of his argu- 
ment on the reprefentation which he makes of her mind, as pre- 
vioufly determined to comply with her mother, and therefore 
that nothing elfe could have affected her. No doubt, if the fimple 
quefKon had been, whether (he would give up her happinefs to her 
mother, her reply would have been, yes ! bee; u r e no daughter 
-could feel for a parent more affection and duty. But her mother 
had given her confent to her acting for herfelf, and never made any 
perfonal objections to her choice. Mifs Barnfton's refinance was in 
fact to the influence over her mother of an interested perfon, whofe 
efforts to defeat her happinefs (he considered herfelf as confeienti- 
oufly juftified in oppofing. " Mr. Daubeny heard you tell me," 
fays ilie, in a letter to her mother in October 1 790, " that you wiflied 
64 me to confult my own happinefs, and that I was of an age to 
" judge for myfelf." She then defcribes him as labouring to render 
Mr. Meade odious in her mother's eyes ; and adds, " attached to 
f 6 Mr. Meade on thebeft principles, can I facrifice my happinefs U 
*' Mr. Daubenfs anger?" She then appeals to her mother, faying, 
*-' that JJje hopes Jhe JImll always be able to fubferibe herfelf her moft 

dutiful, becaufe no power can make her otherwife than her moft 
*' affectionate, daughter." And (he concludes with adding, that thofe 
delations to whom in fact me owed the next duties to parents, were 
anxious that {he mould make this declaration of her mind and in- 
tentions to her mother ; and fhe was indeed then preparing to go 
with them to Bath, to affert her independence. Did not Mifs Barn- 
fton then exprefs to her mother her intentions to act for herfelf 
as plainly as fhe could do, confiftently with her former habits and 
fentiments ? But after Mifs Barnfton's mind was alarmed by the 
particulars of Mr. Daubeny's charges againft Mr. Meade on the 
Subject of a will, fhe then indeed gave up all idea of refiftance, and 
of acting for herfelf. " Defire Mr. Meade not to think of me, but 
u to defend his character," fays me, in a letter to Mrs. Gunrfrag, 
She no longer urged her rights and determinations; for the charges 
about the will were necefiarily firft to be cleared up. And as to 
Mr. Daubeny, what j unification can his fupporters put in for him? 



APPENDIX. 



33# 



« of f convicted of falfe fwearing;' 6 of incorrea princi- 
< pies;' <of deceit;' c leading to lying;' and « this to 
i( < falfe fwearing.' 

" I truft, my Lord, when t merely relate thefe few 
« words, and reftrain my pen from any remarks, you 
« will yourfelf not be backward to give me credit for my 
" forbearance. I will even hope that you will prevent 
" the farther expofureof this affair, and that you will ac- 
e f knowledge the grofs impositions praclifed on you. 1 
~ i£ promife to accept thefe acknowledgments^ and to bury 
" the whole in oblivion. But to fave trouble to your 
" Lordihip and to myfelf, I muft declare to you that t 
tc will accept nothing fhort of the raoft ample and unre- 
f ferved acknowledgments. 

" I remain, &c. T. M. ?> 

Xi P.S. Since writing the above, I have received letters 
*f informing me that your paper has not only been circu- 
(( lated in Bath and London, but is at this time in cir- 
<c culation in Salisbury alfo. How far this is confident 
iC with your letter to me in July, I leave to your Lordihip 
<( to explain. That this unhappy affair is once more made 
et public, I am truly forry : but thofe who have obtruded 
(i it on the public muft abide by the confequence." 

If his laft attack on Mr. Meade's character was obnoxious in a legal 
point of view, was his firft attack lefs fo in amoral view? Will any 
one juftify his violence from the beginning, to prevent the union of 
two independent perfons, who fought a fuitable connection with each 
other, on principles of virtue and religion ? The pretence that Mrs. 
Barnfton made ferious objections is manifeftly founded on quib- 
bling ; as is the affertion that the flander could not have affected. 
Mrs. Meade's mind and conduct. 



APPENDIX. 



. The Bifbop replied as follows : 

" Sir, Rily- Grove, Sept. 23/1805. 

" I Yeflerday received your letter, dated September ig, 
€S in which you fay that « I declined to anfwer two letters 
6i i written by you.' I fear the-efore that you have not 
(( received the letter which I wrote to you from Oldfield- 
€C hall in Chethire, at the end of July, in anfwer to your 
(i letter of the 14th of that month. As I prefume that I 
<e mall fee your reply to my paper, I mall at prefent only 
* ff ,fay that I know nothing of the circulation of my paper, 
6i I never gave a copy of it to any one except your- 
€i f el f and Mr. Daubeny, the two perfons who voluntarily 
€e entruffod me with their documents, for the exprefs pur- 
" pofe of my forming an opinion upon the points in 
€( queftionj and it fo happens that 1 have not heard the 
e - fubjecl mentioned mice I wrote to you from Buckden 
< : in June. I fee no reafon for acknowledging that 
« f grofs impositions have been praclifed upon me;' but 
ce I repeat what I faid in my laft letter, that I mall be 
" always ready to give up any point in which you fhall 
ce prove that I have been miitaken. I underltand that 
Ci you yourfelf have {hewn your copy of my paper to 
<( feveral perfons at Bath. 

" I am, Sir, your obedient fervant, 

ee G. Lincoln." 

Mr. Meade anfwered ; 
" My Lord, 

" I Received your Lordihip's letter of the 23d inftant, 
" but 1 have received no reply to either of my two letters 
u of the 29th of June or 14th of July, The anfwer which 



APPENDIX. 



341 



* l you fay you wrote from Chefhire was probably of no 
great import, or you would have repeated its contents. 
<s You muft pardon my peremptorily denying that * I 
ce ' voluntarily fent my papers to you for the exprefs pur- 
< e 6 pofe of your opinion/ If 1 had done fo, it would 
(c only have rendered it more ungenerous to publim Mrs. 
C( Meade as convicted of falfe fwearing, without your 
'^having once feen her, or any one on her part, or even 
<c letting her know one tingle ground on which you judged 
ec her, until you publimed her condemnation. But I muft 
" deny your affertion. A total ftranger to your Lordmip, 
** I had not heard that you were within a hundred miles 
u of Bath, when I received your application for my papers 
« through Dr. Randolph and Mifs Machine. My part 
m was only not to refufe your application. But does not 
" your own manufcript admit, that you volunteered from 
fe the intereft you felt on account of Mr. Daubeny as a 
(e diftinguifhed theologian? 

(( I muft alfo politively deny that I applied for or deflred 
€{ your opinion. On the contrary, your Lordftiip read 
<( in one of my firft papers, that I wanted no man's 
(e opinion; that I rejected the pretended and affe&ed 
ei demands of a new trial ; that my caufe being decided 
C( at law, I never would liften to private trials, without 
(i judge, jury, witnefs, oath, or reftraint; without means, 
e( or without end.' But that I mould not refufe a liberal 
" enquirer the. fatisfa&ion of feeing the grounds of the 
fC verdiel. 

" My Lord, I prefume, that even this laft letter of 
" your's requires an ample apology. Your Lordhhip pro- 
4( feffes not to have circulated your paper. * 2ui facit 
" * per alium, facit per se.' I only know that it is 



S4£ 



APPENDIX. 



« circulating in Bath, London, Salifbury, and elfe\vhere# 
ec It is circulated by your family, obtruded by them eveii 
ce on Grangers, who are defired as a favour to read it. 

tc Your information that I alfo circulate it, makes me 
te fmile. Men do not ufually fpread fuch papers againft 
cc themfelves. If, before you had publicly pronounced 
* c on Mrs. Meade, you had expreffed, as you now do, a 
ff pFefumption that you mould fee my reply, it would 
Ai have been well on many accounts. But after the publi- 
♦ e cation of your paper, after your various exertions and 
* c letters to different perfons, what can I expecl: from your 
* c feeing any papers of mine? Have you taken any notice 
* c of the letters and arguments I have already fubmitted 
€C to you ? Have you honourably retracted the unjuf£ 
cc expreffions you applied to Mrs. Meade? Have you 
€c given up as unfounded the ftories related by Mrs. 
^Tomline? Have you acknowledged the words afcribed 
€€ to Bifhop Mofs to be alfo unfounded ? Have you ac- 

knowledged or apologized for your own mifreprefenta- 
* c tions of me ? Yet you prefume that you fhall fee my 
ec reply. No, my Lord; your mind feems made up. 
* c The poifon of invective has been widely fpread ; and 
* c the antidote by which I propofe to correct it, will, 1 

truft, be effectual. 

ff I am, &c f T. M." 

The Bifhop in reply wrote the two following letters : 

" Sir, Buckden Palace, Oct. 22, 1805. 

I Have been fo much occupied by bufinefs fince my 
ft return to Buckden, that it has not been in my power 
fooner to notice your letter of September 28th. I now 



APPENDIX. 



343 



Ci endofe a copy of the letter which I wrote to you from 
6c Chefhire at the end of July. 

(e As you had a full power to withhold your papers, 
,c and as you communicated them to me immediately, 
" and without any objection, I mull eonnder you as 
55 c voluntarily fending them to me.' 

{e If my paper has been circulated in the manner you 
4< mention, it is certainly without my knowledge; and I 

do not hold myfelf refponnble for the acls of another 
fi perfon which were not authorized by me, 

* ( I am, Sir, your obedient fervant, 

«G. Lincoln/' 



Copy of a letter written by the Bifhop of Lincoln to 
Mr. Meade, from Cheihire, at the end of July 1805, and 
which Mr. Meade did not receive. 

" Sir, 

se THE ftile of your letter dated the 29th of last month 
ec was fuch that I did not think it necefTary to fend mj 
lc anfwer to it. Your letter dated July 14th has followed 
<( me into Chefhire, and I now take the earlieft op- 
fe portunity in my power of acknowledging it, I defire 
6i to repeat, that I have not admitted any alfertion upon 
* c Mr. Daubeny's authority alone as the ground of 
* £ my opinion. What Bifhop Mofs faid of Mrs. Mead© 
<c I have only recited as part of the converfation which 
<c paffed between Mrs. Meade and Mr, Daubeny. I 
" cannot allow, that you have proved that Bihhop Mofs did 
ee not ufe the expreflion afcribed to him. I did not notice 
4< what you fald concerning Admiral Stanhope, becaufe 



344 



APPENDIX. 



€C my opinion concerning Mrs. Meade's evidence upon 
t( the trial could not poffibly be affected by any thing 
(C which he could fay. I cannot allow, that, in the cafe 
" of Mrs. Meade, general character is to weigh againft 
fC pofltive evidence: and the opinions of the bifhops I 
" have mentioned refpecting Mr. Daubeny are not con- 
*' fined to his character as e a theologian.' All my 
ee papers upon this fubject are at Buckden; but I am 
Ci pretty confident that I have no where faid that c Mrs, 
e( ( Barnfton was too old and infirm to give evidence againft 
cc c her daughter.' I have always confidered Mrs. Barn- 
" (ion's abfence from the trial as proceeding from a very 
fC different caufe. The accounts of the interview to which 
" you allude appeared to me perfectly confiftent with each 
<c other; and I muft confider them as agreeing in every 
<c eflential point, till it mall be proved that there is fome 
*' contradiction between them. Throughout my paper 
cs I have adduced the authorities upon which my opinion 
" and conclufions reft, and fee no reafon to retract or alter 
6C any thing which I have faid. I {hall be ready to give 
<c up any point in which you mail prove that I have been 
€€ miftaken; but I can admit nothing on either fide upon 
" the unfupported affertion of the party himfelf. The 
(c other parts of your letter do not appear to me to require 
ec any anfwer. 

cs I am, &c. 

" G. Lincoln." 

As Mr. Meade's anfwer only repeats what has appeared 
in the pamphlet, it is needlefs to trouble the reader with 
it. He remonftrated with his Lordfhip on his profefling 
to give up any points proved to be wrong 3 and yet hold- 



APPENDIX, 345 

ing to thofe which are proved to be fo. He reminded 
his Lordfhip of the confidence placed in him by a ftranger, 
and of the return made for fuch candour, by fetting that 
granger's character afloat in the world by the circulation 
of a long paper of invectives. And he concluded with 
faying, Aecuftomed to efteem your writings, and always 
<( refpecting your high ftation, I would, not willingly, ancT 
"I hope I have not in any degree acted inconfiftently 
96 with thefe fentiments. If I fpeak or act with fenfi- 
(< bility, your Lordfhip mult afk yourfelf what or how you 
u would feel, if any man living had uttered againft your 
P Lordfhip's wife one half of what you have circulated 
(i againft mine. 

(i But whatever I may do to protect the honour and 
u credit of her family, or however I may conflder myfelf 
cc perfonally injured, not a fentiment of revenge, if I 

know myfelf, affects the mind of, &c. &c. 

" T. MEADE/' 



Mr. Meade clofed his correfpondence with the Bifhop 
by the following letter: 

« Chatley-Lodge, March 12, 18QG. 

" My Lord, 

<c I Have directed my bookfeller to convey to you my 
ec reply to the manufcript you were pleafed to fend to me. 
(e Your Lordfhip thought proper to apologize, expreffing 
6C forrow that you were unable to fend that unexpected 
<e and extraordinary paper to me fooner. It is not . to 
(e follow an example thus fet for me, nor is it with any 
u farcaflic fentiment, that I alfo apologize for not conveying 

A A 



346 



APPENDIX. 



f< to you an earlier reply. But it required calm thinking 
6( to decide in what manner I fhould notice an injurv 
i( which, in every point of view, is probably without 
" example; and I wifhed alfo to fubdue thofe fentiments 
ce of irritation which a man muft be fuppofed to feel, on 
" feeing a black catalogue of crimes unworthily charged 
" on his wife by a -Granger. Above all I was delirous to 
€C learn what was the object or plan of my wife's enemies, 
%( and to what extent the affront was to be carried, that 
ee my defence might, proceed accordingly. And finding 
ce that the induflry in difperfing this poifon is almoft be- 
C£ yond belief, and little confiftent with that moderation 
(( which a confcioufnefs of a good caufe would naturally 

infpire, I have refolved to adopt a mode of putting down 
Cf this calumny, which I hope will be effectual. 

ec Your Lordfhip thought proper to write a letter, re- 
ec fleeting on me, to my adverfary; who, from his known 
cf connection with thofe who manage or are concerned 
cc in a periodical work for the review of literary publica- 
€C tions, muft be prefumed to have taken advantage of his 

fituation to introduce into it your Lordfhip's panegyric 
w on himfelf, and infult on me ; unconnected as your 
ce letter was with the fubject in that Review, and incon- 
" fiftent as the publifhing of private manufcript letters is 
ec with the fcheme of fuch works. Whether this was 
" manly and honourable, others will judge. How far it 
" accorded with your Lordfhip's intentions you beft can 
s < Jell, who about that time affured me that you gave no 
" authority to anyone for publifhing your opinions, even 
66 when your own connexions were mod active in circu- 
" lating your papers. What is a plain perfon to under- 
« ftand by all this ? 



APPENDIX. ' 347 

tfC I have however the fatisfaction of knowing that I 
<( have not returned evil for evil, although the intempe- 
* f ranee of fome of my deluded enemies gave me full op- 
6e portunity of effectually wounding them. 

ce But in whatever manner my defence may hurt them, 
" they muft charge it on themfelves. They began the 
ic attack, and I defend myfelf. They circulate, I do the 

fame. If they ftir farther, fo will I, in the mod public 
'* way. 

" Your Lordmip has thought proper to pronounce 
**. that one of the parties must be guilty. If it muft be 
€C foj the world will judge who that is. 

I have the honour to be your Lordfhip's 
w Moft obedient fervant, 

" Thomas Meade/' 

€< P.S. I this moment hear from an EfTex gentleman 
16 that your Lordfhip's paper is circulating in that county." 

• ■ - 1 



It 



Richard Ciuttwell, Printer^ St. James's-Street, Bath* 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: March 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 



LIBRARY OF 



CONGRESS 




017 520 1 



51 8 • 



